Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
Hi all,

Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
including your most recent input into the lastest version of the movement
strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]

We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you have
made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared strategic
direction.

In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will involve
developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have built
together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will of
course offer an update as they become available.

*Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on the
draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
feedback you offered.

*Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be invited
to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process and
timeline.

*Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the volunteers,
staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new ones
created in their place. We'll keep you updated.

*Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual Wikimedia
CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for CEE.[3]
Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for such
a wonderful event!

*In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate these
updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking to
the Communications department about keeping them going once the strategic
planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep the
feedback coming.

Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in touch
with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support we
can.

Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in the
process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We invite
you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]

We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy. Thank
you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.

Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),

Katherine

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
[3]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
[4]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-September/088654.html
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters

--
Katherine Maher
Executive Director

*We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*

Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kmaher@wikimedia.org
https://annual.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Thanks for the update, Katherine.

Regards,

Isaac

On Sep 30, 2017 9:29 PM, "Katherine Maher" <kmaher@wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hi all,

Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
including your most recent input into the lastest version of the movement
strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]

We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you have
made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared strategic
direction.

In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will involve
developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have built
together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will of
course offer an update as they become available.

*Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on the
draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
feedback you offered.

*Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be invited
to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process and
timeline.

*Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the volunteers,
staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new ones
created in their place. We'll keep you updated.

*Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual Wikimedia
CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for CEE.[3]
Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for such
a wonderful event!

*In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate these
updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking to
the Communications department about keeping them going once the strategic
planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep the
feedback coming.

Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in touch
with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support we
can.

Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in the
process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We invite
you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]

We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy. Thank
you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.

Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),

Katherine

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
[3]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
[4]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-September/088654.html
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters

--
Katherine Maher
Executive Director

*We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*

Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kmaher@wikimedia.org
https://annual.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Hello Katherine,

This is actually sad news. In my opinion, the draft is far away from being
a useful and appropriate document for our future.

The serious issues from the talk page are only partially addressed in the
rewrite. So I contest your claim: "The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
feedback you offered."

You have announced that organizations and individuals are invited to
endorse the draft. Will there also be a possibility to reject the draft? I
remember the 2011 image filter referendum, when the WMF asked the community
how important it finds the filter, but not giving the option to be against
it.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&
uselang=en

The drafts tries to enforce a new definition of the "community": "from
editors to donors, to organizers, and beyond". I thought that "community"
were people who are contributing to the wiki Wikipedia on a regular basis
as volunteers.

I am very positive of having an open Wikimedia *movement*. But if in future
more or less everybody will be *community*: that is in fact abolishing the
community.

Kind regards,
Ziko van Dijk





2017-09-30 22:28 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org>:

> Hi all,
>
> Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
> including your most recent input into the lastest version of the movement
> strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]
>
> We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
> Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
> endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
> thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you have
> made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared strategic
> direction.
>
> In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will involve
> developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have built
> together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will of
> course offer an update as they become available.
>
> *Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on the
> draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> feedback you offered.
>
> *Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
> organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be invited
> to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
> building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process and
> timeline.
>
> *Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the volunteers,
> staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
> transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new ones
> created in their place. We'll keep you updated.
>
> *Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
> Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual Wikimedia
> CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
> series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for CEE.[3]
> Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for such
> a wonderful event!
>
> *In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate these
> updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking to
> the Communications department about keeping them going once the strategic
> planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep the
> feedback coming.
>
> Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
> often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
> Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
> affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in touch
> with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support we
> can.
>
> Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in the
> process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We invite
> you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]
>
> We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
> incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy. Thank
> you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
> more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.
>
> Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),
>
> Katherine
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
> [3]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
> E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
> [4]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> September/088654.html
> [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
> Executive Director
>
> *We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kmaher@wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Ziko's point may not fit the rigid Americanocentric ideal of everything
must be positive, fantastic, yeehaw-we-are-number-one, but he's spot on
with how the foundations remain flawed.

Only ever hearing congratulations and thanks can get you to a win, but will
never keep you there.

Return to the talk page and use the criticism to help meaningful
improvements, please.

Fae
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
http://telegram.me/wmlgbt

On 2 Oct 2017 14:56, "Ziko van Dijk" <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Katherine,

This is actually sad news. In my opinion, the draft is far away from being
a useful and appropriate document for our future.

The serious issues from the talk page are only partially addressed in the
rewrite. So I contest your claim: "The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
feedback you offered."

You have announced that organizations and individuals are invited to
endorse the draft. Will there also be a possibility to reject the draft? I
remember the 2011 image filter referendum, when the WMF asked the community
how important it finds the filter, but not giving the option to be against
it.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&
uselang=en

The drafts tries to enforce a new definition of the "community": "from
editors to donors, to organizers, and beyond". I thought that "community"
were people who are contributing to the wiki Wikipedia on a regular basis
as volunteers.

I am very positive of having an open Wikimedia *movement*. But if in future
more or less everybody will be *community*: that is in fact abolishing the
community.

Kind regards,
Ziko van Dijk





2017-09-30 22:28 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org>:

> Hi all,
>
> Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
> including your most recent input into the lastest version of the movement
> strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]
>
> We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
> Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
> endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
> thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you have
> made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared
strategic
> direction.
>
> In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will involve
> developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have built
> together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will of
> course offer an update as they become available.
>
> *Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on the
> draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> feedback you offered.
>
> *Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
> organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be invited
> to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
> building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process and
> timeline.
>
> *Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the volunteers,
> staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
> transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new
ones
> created in their place. We'll keep you updated.
>
> *Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
> Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual
Wikimedia
> CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
> series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for
CEE.[3]
> Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for
such
> a wonderful event!
>
> *In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate these
> updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking to
> the Communications department about keeping them going once the strategic
> planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep the
> feedback coming.
>
> Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
> often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
> Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
> affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in touch
> with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support we
> can.
>
> Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in the
> process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We invite
> you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]
>
> We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
> incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy. Thank
> you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
> more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.
>
> Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),
>
> Katherine
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
> [3]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
> E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
> [4]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> September/088654.html
> [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
> Executive Director
>
> *We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kmaher@wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Based on your definition of community does that mean that mediawiki
developers are not part of the Wikimedia community?

Are people who volunteer in the real world or teachers who incorporate
Wikipedia into their classes not part of the Wikimedia community?

Members of staff of GLAM institutions who we partner with and who
evangelise on our behalf? Are they not part of the Wikimedia community?

This more inclusive definition has long been used by some affiliates.

To exclude these individuals would be against the very values of openness
that we claim to represent and to be blunt, simply alienating.

Seddon

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ziko's point may not fit the rigid Americanocentric ideal of everything
> must be positive, fantastic, yeehaw-we-are-number-one, but he's spot on
> with how the foundations remain flawed.
>
> Only ever hearing congratulations and thanks can get you to a win, but will
> never keep you there.
>
> Return to the talk page and use the criticism to help meaningful
> improvements, please.
>
> Fae
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
> http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
>
> On 2 Oct 2017 14:56, "Ziko van Dijk" <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Katherine,
>
> This is actually sad news. In my opinion, the draft is far away from being
> a useful and appropriate document for our future.
>
> The serious issues from the talk page are only partially addressed in the
> rewrite. So I contest your claim: "The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> feedback you offered."
>
> You have announced that organizations and individuals are invited to
> endorse the draft. Will there also be a possibility to reject the draft? I
> remember the 2011 image filter referendum, when the WMF asked the community
> how important it finds the filter, but not giving the option to be against
> it.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&
> uselang=en
>
> The drafts tries to enforce a new definition of the "community": "from
> editors to donors, to organizers, and beyond". I thought that "community"
> were people who are contributing to the wiki Wikipedia on a regular basis
> as volunteers.
>
> I am very positive of having an open Wikimedia *movement*. But if in future
> more or less everybody will be *community*: that is in fact abolishing the
> community.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ziko van Dijk
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-09-30 22:28 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org>:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
> > including your most recent input into the lastest version of the movement
> > strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]
> >
> > We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
> > Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
> > endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
> > thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you
> have
> > made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared
> strategic
> > direction.
> >
> > In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will involve
> > developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have built
> > together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will of
> > course offer an update as they become available.
> >
> > *Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on the
> > draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> > feedback you offered.
> >
> > *Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
> > organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be
> invited
> > to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
> > building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process
> and
> > timeline.
> >
> > *Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the
> volunteers,
> > staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
> > transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new
> ones
> > created in their place. We'll keep you updated.
> >
> > *Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
> > Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual
> Wikimedia
> > CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
> > series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for
> CEE.[3]
> > Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for
> such
> > a wonderful event!
> >
> > *In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate
> these
> > updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking
> to
> > the Communications department about keeping them going once the strategic
> > planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep
> the
> > feedback coming.
> >
> > Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
> > often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
> > Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
> > affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in touch
> > with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support we
> > can.
> >
> > Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in
> the
> > process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We invite
> > you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]
> >
> > We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
> > incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy. Thank
> > you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
> > more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.
> >
> > Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),
> >
> > Katherine
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Direction
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
> > [3]
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
> > E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
> > [4]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> > September/088654.html
> > [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters
> >
> > --
> > Katherine Maher
> > Executive Director
> >
> > *We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> > San Francisco, CA 94104
> >
> > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> > +1 (415) 712 4873
> > kmaher@wikimedia.org
> > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
I don't read Ziko's concern as one that suggests to exclude developers or
teachers.

I read it as a suggestion that "... and beyond" is too inclusive, and thus
it doesn't mean much. This is a concern that I share myself. I'm all for
being inclusive, but the whole point of defining something is that it
should have _some_ limits.

If Ziko have meant something else, I'll be happy to know.

I'm assuming good faith on everybody's behalf. We come from different
cultures, we have different ideas, and we have different native languages.
That's precisely why we need clearer definitions, not fuzzier ones.


--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · ?????? ????????? ??????????
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
?“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore?

2017-10-02 17:12 GMT+03:00 Joseph Seddon <josephseddon@gmail.com>:

> Based on your definition of community does that mean that mediawiki
> developers are not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> Are people who volunteer in the real world or teachers who incorporate
> Wikipedia into their classes not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> Members of staff of GLAM institutions who we partner with and who
> evangelise on our behalf? Are they not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> This more inclusive definition has long been used by some affiliates.
>
> To exclude these individuals would be against the very values of openness
> that we claim to represent and to be blunt, simply alienating.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ziko's point may not fit the rigid Americanocentric ideal of everything
> > must be positive, fantastic, yeehaw-we-are-number-one, but he's spot on
> > with how the foundations remain flawed.
> >
> > Only ever hearing congratulations and thanks can get you to a win, but
> will
> > never keep you there.
> >
> > Return to the talk page and use the criticism to help meaningful
> > improvements, please.
> >
> > Fae
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
> > http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
> >
> > On 2 Oct 2017 14:56, "Ziko van Dijk" <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Katherine,
> >
> > This is actually sad news. In my opinion, the draft is far away from
> being
> > a useful and appropriate document for our future.
> >
> > The serious issues from the talk page are only partially addressed in the
> > rewrite. So I contest your claim: "The version on Meta-Wiki is based on
> the
> > feedback you offered."
> >
> > You have announced that organizations and individuals are invited to
> > endorse the draft. Will there also be a possibility to reject the draft?
> I
> > remember the 2011 image filter referendum, when the WMF asked the
> community
> > how important it finds the filter, but not giving the option to be
> against
> > it.
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&
> > uselang=en
> >
> > The drafts tries to enforce a new definition of the "community": "from
> > editors to donors, to organizers, and beyond". I thought that "community"
> > were people who are contributing to the wiki Wikipedia on a regular basis
> > as volunteers.
> >
> > I am very positive of having an open Wikimedia *movement*. But if in
> future
> > more or less everybody will be *community*: that is in fact abolishing
> the
> > community.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Ziko van Dijk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-09-30 22:28 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org>:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
> > > including your most recent input into the lastest version of the
> movement
> > > strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]
> > >
> > > We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
> > > Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
> > > endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
> > > thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you
> > have
> > > made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared
> > strategic
> > > direction.
> > >
> > > In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will
> involve
> > > developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have
> built
> > > together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will
> of
> > > course offer an update as they become available.
> > >
> > > *Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on
> the
> > > draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> > > feedback you offered.
> > >
> > > *Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
> > > organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be
> > invited
> > > to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
> > > building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process
> > and
> > > timeline.
> > >
> > > *Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the
> > volunteers,
> > > staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
> > > transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new
> > ones
> > > created in their place. We'll keep you updated.
> > >
> > > *Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
> > > Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual
> > Wikimedia
> > > CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
> > > series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for
> > CEE.[3]
> > > Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for
> > such
> > > a wonderful event!
> > >
> > > *In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate
> > these
> > > updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking
> > to
> > > the Communications department about keeping them going once the
> strategic
> > > planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep
> > the
> > > feedback coming.
> > >
> > > Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
> > > often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
> > > affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in
> touch
> > > with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support
> we
> > > can.
> > >
> > > Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in
> > the
> > > process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We
> invite
> > > you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]
> > >
> > > We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
> > > incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy.
> Thank
> > > you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
> > > more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.
> > >
> > > Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),
> > >
> > > Katherine
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2017/Direction
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
> > > [3]
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
> > > E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
> > > [4]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> > > September/088654.html
> > > [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters
> > >
> > > --
> > > Katherine Maher
> > > Executive Director
> > >
> > > *We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> > > San Francisco, CA 94104
> > >
> > > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> > > +1 (415) 712 4873
> > > kmaher@wikimedia.org
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
All possible stakeholders and participants in our 'value chain' should be
consulted and be part of developing strategy.

That does not make them all the same as the community that create our
projects or sustain our content long term. It's a mime that has been pushed
and stretched until the community of unpaid and "nonprofessional"
volunteers feel like second class citizens without a vote when it ever
matters.

Fae
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
http://telegram.me/wmlgbt

On 2 Oct 2017 15:12, "Joseph Seddon" <josephseddon@gmail.com> wrote:

> Based on your definition of community does that mean that mediawiki
> developers are not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> Are people who volunteer in the real world or teachers who incorporate
> Wikipedia into their classes not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> Members of staff of GLAM institutions who we partner with and who
> evangelise on our behalf? Are they not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> This more inclusive definition has long been used by some affiliates.
>
> To exclude these individuals would be against the very values of openness
> that we claim to represent and to be blunt, simply alienating.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ziko's point may not fit the rigid Americanocentric ideal of everything
> > must be positive, fantastic, yeehaw-we-are-number-one, but he's spot on
> > with how the foundations remain flawed.
> >
> > Only ever hearing congratulations and thanks can get you to a win, but
> will
> > never keep you there.
> >
> > Return to the talk page and use the criticism to help meaningful
> > improvements, please.
> >
> > Fae
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
> > http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
> >
> > On 2 Oct 2017 14:56, "Ziko van Dijk" <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Katherine,
> >
> > This is actually sad news. In my opinion, the draft is far away from
> being
> > a useful and appropriate document for our future.
> >
> > The serious issues from the talk page are only partially addressed in the
> > rewrite. So I contest your claim: "The version on Meta-Wiki is based on
> the
> > feedback you offered."
> >
> > You have announced that organizations and individuals are invited to
> > endorse the draft. Will there also be a possibility to reject the draft?
> I
> > remember the 2011 image filter referendum, when the WMF asked the
> community
> > how important it finds the filter, but not giving the option to be
> against
> > it.
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&
> > uselang=en
> >
> > The drafts tries to enforce a new definition of the "community": "from
> > editors to donors, to organizers, and beyond". I thought that "community"
> > were people who are contributing to the wiki Wikipedia on a regular basis
> > as volunteers.
> >
> > I am very positive of having an open Wikimedia *movement*. But if in
> future
> > more or less everybody will be *community*: that is in fact abolishing
> the
> > community.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Ziko van Dijk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-09-30 22:28 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org>:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
> > > including your most recent input into the lastest version of the
> movement
> > > strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]
> > >
> > > We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
> > > Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
> > > endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
> > > thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you
> > have
> > > made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared
> > strategic
> > > direction.
> > >
> > > In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will
> involve
> > > developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have
> built
> > > together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will
> of
> > > course offer an update as they become available.
> > >
> > > *Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on
> the
> > > draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> > > feedback you offered.
> > >
> > > *Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
> > > organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be
> > invited
> > > to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
> > > building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process
> > and
> > > timeline.
> > >
> > > *Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the
> > volunteers,
> > > staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
> > > transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new
> > ones
> > > created in their place. We'll keep you updated.
> > >
> > > *Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
> > > Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual
> > Wikimedia
> > > CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
> > > series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for
> > CEE.[3]
> > > Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for
> > such
> > > a wonderful event!
> > >
> > > *In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate
> > these
> > > updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking
> > to
> > > the Communications department about keeping them going once the
> strategic
> > > planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep
> > the
> > > feedback coming.
> > >
> > > Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
> > > often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
> > > affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in
> touch
> > > with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support
> we
> > > can.
> > >
> > > Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in
> > the
> > > process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We
> invite
> > > you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]
> > >
> > > We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
> > > incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy.
> Thank
> > > you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
> > > more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.
> > >
> > > Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),
> > >
> > > Katherine
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2017/Direction
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
> > > [3]
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
> > > E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
> > > [4]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> > > September/088654.html
> > > [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters
> > >
> > > --
> > > Katherine Maher
> > > Executive Director
> > >
> > > *We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> > > San Francisco, CA 94104
> > >
> > > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> > > +1 (415) 712 4873
> > > kmaher@wikimedia.org
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Hello Joseph,

We must distinguish between the community, the movement and partners of the
movement.

The Wikimedia movement is not a community, it consists of several
communities. Such as the community of Wikipedia in French, of Wikidata or
of Mediawiki.org.

Staffers of the WMF are part of the movement, as the WMF is part of the
movement, as a chapter is part of the movement. Individual staff members or
chapter board members can belong to communities.

Donors can be part of the movement, if they like to see themselves as such.
I doubt that many people who donate 10 euros think of themselves as
"community".

Staff from our GLAM partners are partners, not community, not movement.

I wonder if the WMF will say in future "we asked the community and it
approved it", what will be the meaning of "the community"?

Kind regards
Ziko





2017-10-02 16:12 GMT+02:00 Joseph Seddon <josephseddon@gmail.com>:

> Based on your definition of community does that mean that mediawiki
> developers are not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> Are people who volunteer in the real world or teachers who incorporate
> Wikipedia into their classes not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> Members of staff of GLAM institutions who we partner with and who
> evangelise on our behalf? Are they not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> This more inclusive definition has long been used by some affiliates.
>
> To exclude these individuals would be against the very values of openness
> that we claim to represent and to be blunt, simply alienating.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ziko's point may not fit the rigid Americanocentric ideal of everything
> > must be positive, fantastic, yeehaw-we-are-number-one, but he's spot on
> > with how the foundations remain flawed.
> >
> > Only ever hearing congratulations and thanks can get you to a win, but
> will
> > never keep you there.
> >
> > Return to the talk page and use the criticism to help meaningful
> > improvements, please.
> >
> > Fae
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
> > http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
> >
> > On 2 Oct 2017 14:56, "Ziko van Dijk" <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Katherine,
> >
> > This is actually sad news. In my opinion, the draft is far away from
> being
> > a useful and appropriate document for our future.
> >
> > The serious issues from the talk page are only partially addressed in the
> > rewrite. So I contest your claim: "The version on Meta-Wiki is based on
> the
> > feedback you offered."
> >
> > You have announced that organizations and individuals are invited to
> > endorse the draft. Will there also be a possibility to reject the draft?
> I
> > remember the 2011 image filter referendum, when the WMF asked the
> community
> > how important it finds the filter, but not giving the option to be
> against
> > it.
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&
> > uselang=en
> >
> > The drafts tries to enforce a new definition of the "community": "from
> > editors to donors, to organizers, and beyond". I thought that "community"
> > were people who are contributing to the wiki Wikipedia on a regular basis
> > as volunteers.
> >
> > I am very positive of having an open Wikimedia *movement*. But if in
> future
> > more or less everybody will be *community*: that is in fact abolishing
> the
> > community.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Ziko van Dijk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-09-30 22:28 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org>:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
> > > including your most recent input into the lastest version of the
> movement
> > > strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]
> > >
> > > We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
> > > Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
> > > endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
> > > thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you
> > have
> > > made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared
> > strategic
> > > direction.
> > >
> > > In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will
> involve
> > > developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have
> built
> > > together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will
> of
> > > course offer an update as they become available.
> > >
> > > *Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on
> the
> > > draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> > > feedback you offered.
> > >
> > > *Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
> > > organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be
> > invited
> > > to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
> > > building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process
> > and
> > > timeline.
> > >
> > > *Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the
> > volunteers,
> > > staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
> > > transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new
> > ones
> > > created in their place. We'll keep you updated.
> > >
> > > *Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
> > > Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual
> > Wikimedia
> > > CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
> > > series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for
> > CEE.[3]
> > > Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for
> > such
> > > a wonderful event!
> > >
> > > *In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate
> > these
> > > updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking
> > to
> > > the Communications department about keeping them going once the
> strategic
> > > planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep
> > the
> > > feedback coming.
> > >
> > > Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
> > > often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
> > > affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in
> touch
> > > with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support
> we
> > > can.
> > >
> > > Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in
> > the
> > > process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We
> invite
> > > you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]
> > >
> > > We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
> > > incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy.
> Thank
> > > you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
> > > more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.
> > >
> > > Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),
> > >
> > > Katherine
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2017/Direction
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
> > > [3]
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
> > > E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
> > > [4]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> > > September/088654.html
> > > [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters
> > >
> > > --
> > > Katherine Maher
> > > Executive Director
> > >
> > > *We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> > > San Francisco, CA 94104
> > >
> > > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> > > +1 (415) 712 4873
> > > kmaher@wikimedia.org
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
As I mentioned earlier on a different occasion, at the very first step we
at the Russian Wikivoyage have taken the strategy discussion seriously and
compiled this document (Russian + translation to English),

https://ru.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82:%D0%A1%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F

It was essentially ignored: We never received any feedback, and there was
no indication any of our points were taken to Step 2, or, in fact, that
anybody ever read it. (Which indeed corresponds with the existing proposal
to define all Wikivoyage communities as least developed - "(lower impact;
don't merit *proactive* investment)").

After that, none of us participated in the subsequent strategy discussions.
I am clearly not going to endorse the resulting strategy document, though I
appreciate the time and effort of people who compiled it.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Joseph Seddon <josephseddon@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Based on your definition of community does that mean that mediawiki
> developers are not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> Are people who volunteer in the real world or teachers who incorporate
> Wikipedia into their classes not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> Members of staff of GLAM institutions who we partner with and who
> evangelise on our behalf? Are they not part of the Wikimedia community?
>
> This more inclusive definition has long been used by some affiliates.
>
> To exclude these individuals would be against the very values of openness
> that we claim to represent and to be blunt, simply alienating.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ziko's point may not fit the rigid Americanocentric ideal of everything
> > must be positive, fantastic, yeehaw-we-are-number-one, but he's spot on
> > with how the foundations remain flawed.
> >
> > Only ever hearing congratulations and thanks can get you to a win, but
> will
> > never keep you there.
> >
> > Return to the talk page and use the criticism to help meaningful
> > improvements, please.
> >
> > Fae
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
> > http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
> >
> > On 2 Oct 2017 14:56, "Ziko van Dijk" <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Katherine,
> >
> > This is actually sad news. In my opinion, the draft is far away from
> being
> > a useful and appropriate document for our future.
> >
> > The serious issues from the talk page are only partially addressed in the
> > rewrite. So I contest your claim: "The version on Meta-Wiki is based on
> the
> > feedback you offered."
> >
> > You have announced that organizations and individuals are invited to
> > endorse the draft. Will there also be a possibility to reject the draft?
> I
> > remember the 2011 image filter referendum, when the WMF asked the
> community
> > how important it finds the filter, but not giving the option to be
> against
> > it.
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&
> > uselang=en
> >
> > The drafts tries to enforce a new definition of the "community": "from
> > editors to donors, to organizers, and beyond". I thought that "community"
> > were people who are contributing to the wiki Wikipedia on a regular basis
> > as volunteers.
> >
> > I am very positive of having an open Wikimedia *movement*. But if in
> future
> > more or less everybody will be *community*: that is in fact abolishing
> the
> > community.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Ziko van Dijk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-09-30 22:28 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org>:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
> > > including your most recent input into the lastest version of the
> movement
> > > strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]
> > >
> > > We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
> > > Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
> > > endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
> > > thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you
> > have
> > > made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared
> > strategic
> > > direction.
> > >
> > > In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will
> involve
> > > developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have
> built
> > > together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will
> of
> > > course offer an update as they become available.
> > >
> > > *Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on
> the
> > > draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> > > feedback you offered.
> > >
> > > *Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
> > > organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be
> > invited
> > > to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
> > > building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process
> > and
> > > timeline.
> > >
> > > *Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the
> > volunteers,
> > > staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
> > > transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new
> > ones
> > > created in their place. We'll keep you updated.
> > >
> > > *Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
> > > Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual
> > Wikimedia
> > > CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
> > > series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for
> > CEE.[3]
> > > Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for
> > such
> > > a wonderful event!
> > >
> > > *In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate
> > these
> > > updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking
> > to
> > > the Communications department about keeping them going once the
> strategic
> > > planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep
> > the
> > > feedback coming.
> > >
> > > Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
> > > often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
> > > affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in
> touch
> > > with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support
> we
> > > can.
> > >
> > > Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in
> > the
> > > process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We
> invite
> > > you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]
> > >
> > > We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
> > > incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy.
> Thank
> > > you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
> > > more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.
> > >
> > > Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),
> > >
> > > Katherine
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2017/Direction
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
> > > [3]
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
> > > E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
> > > [4]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> > > September/088654.html
> > > [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters
> > >
> > > --
> > > Katherine Maher
> > > Executive Director
> > >
> > > *We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> > > San Francisco, CA 94104
> > >
> > > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> > > +1 (415) 712 4873
> > > kmaher@wikimedia.org
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Hello,

If you feel a strong urge to reject the text, there is obviously nothing
preventing anyone from creating a Meta-Wiki page to that purpose. However,
I would first ask to reflect on the process, its outcome, and where it's
going.

Strategy is complicated. Building a movement strategy even more so [
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/19/wikimedia-strategy-2030-discussions/
]. One person's serious issue may be another person's slight preference.
People's serious issues may be at odds with each other (and I can tell you
from experience that they are indeed). Balancing all those priorities is a
difficult exercise, and I certainly don't claim to have done it perfectly.
But I do think the outcome we've arrived at represents the shared vision of
a large part of the movement.

As I was writing, rewriting and editing the text of the direction, I did
consider everything that was shared on the talk page, and the last version
is indeed based on those comments, as well as those shared during multiple
Wikimania sessions, individual chats, comments from the Drafting group,
from affiliates, from staff, and so on.

While I did consider all of those, I didn't respond to every single
comment, and there is little I can do about that except apologize and
endeavor to do better. I should have set clearer expectations that not
every comment would be integrated in the text. I ran into an issue all too
familiar in the Wikiverse where one person had to integrate comments and
feedback from a large group of people at the same time.

High-level vision and strategy integration isn't really something that can
be spread across a group of people as easily as writing an encyclopedia
article, and so I ended up being a bottleneck for responding to comments. I
had to prioritize what I deemed were issues that were shared by a large
group, and those that seemed to be more individual concerns.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not the "everything must be positive,
fantastic, yeehaw-we-are-number-one" type. If anything, I'm rather the
opposite, as I think many Wikimedians are. If we had unlimited time, I'd
probably continue to edit the draft for years, and I'm sure there would be
other perfectionists to feed my obsession.

However, others in my personal and professional circles have helped me
realize in the past few weeks that even getting to this stage of the
process is remarkable. As Wikimedians, we often focus on what's wrong and
needs fixing. Sometimes, our negativity bias leads us to lose focus of the
accomplishments. This can clash with the typical American culture, but I
think somewhere in the middle is where those respective tunnel visions
widen and meet.

One thing I've learned from Ed Bland, my co-architect during this process,
is that sometimes things can't be perfect. Sometimes, excellence means
recognizing when something is "good enough" and getting out of the
asymptotic editing and decision paralysis loop. It means accepting that a
few things annoy us so that a larger group of people is excited and
motivated to participate.

From everything I've heard and read in the past two months, the last
version of the direction is agreeable to a large part of individuals,
groups, and organizations that have been involved in the process. Not
everyone agrees with everything in the document, even within the
Foundation, and even me. But enough people across the movement agree with
enough of the document that we can all use it as a starting point for the
next phase of discussions about roles, resources, and responsibilities.

I do hope that many of you will consider endorsing the direction in a few
weeks. While I won't claim to know everyone involved, I think I know you
enough, Ziko and Fæ, from your work and long-time commitment in the
movement, to venture that there is more in this document that you agree
with than that you disagree with. I hope that the prospect of moving in a
shared direction will outweigh the possible annoyances. And so I hope that
we'll endorse the direction together, even if it's in our typically
Wikimedian begrudging fashion.


2017-10-02 6:56 GMT-07:00 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com>:

> Hello Katherine,
>
> This is actually sad news. In my opinion, the draft is far away from being
> a useful and appropriate document for our future.
>
> The serious issues from the talk page are only partially addressed in the
> rewrite. So I contest your claim: "The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> feedback you offered."
>
> You have announced that organizations and individuals are invited to
> endorse the draft. Will there also be a possibility to reject the draft? I
> remember the 2011 image filter referendum, when the WMF asked the community
> how important it finds the filter, but not giving the option to be against
> it.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&
> uselang=en
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&uselang=en>
>
> The drafts tries to enforce a new definition of the "community": "from
> editors to donors, to organizers, and beyond". I thought that "community"
> were people who are contributing to the wiki Wikipedia on a regular basis
> as volunteers.
>
> I am very positive of having an open Wikimedia *movement*. But if in future
> more or less everybody will be *community*: that is in fact abolishing the
> community.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ziko van Dijk
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-09-30 22:28 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org>:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
> > including your most recent input into the lastest version of the movement
> > strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]
> >
> > We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
> > Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
> > endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
> > thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you
> have
> > made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared
> strategic
> > direction.
> >
> > In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will involve
> > developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have built
> > together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will of
> > course offer an update as they become available.
> >
> > *Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on the
> > draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> > feedback you offered.
> >
> > *Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
> > organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be
> invited
> > to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
> > building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process
> and
> > timeline.
> >
> > *Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the
> volunteers,
> > staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
> > transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new
> ones
> > created in their place. We'll keep you updated.
> >
> > *Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
> > Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual
> Wikimedia
> > CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
> > series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for
> CEE.[3]
> > Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for
> such
> > a wonderful event!
> >
> > *In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate
> these
> > updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking
> to
> > the Communications department about keeping them going once the strategic
> > planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep
> the
> > feedback coming.
> >
> > Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
> > often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
> > Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
> > affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in touch
> > with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support we
> > can.
> >
> > Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in
> the
> > process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We invite
> > you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]
> >
> > We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
> > incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy. Thank
> > you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
> > more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.
> >
> > Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),
> >
> > Katherine
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/
> 2017/Direction
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
> > [3]
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
> > E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
> > [4]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> > September/088654.html
> > [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters
> >
> > --
> > Katherine Maher
> > Executive Director
> >
> > *We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> > San Francisco, CA 94104
> >
> > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> > +1 (415) 712 4873
> > kmaher@wikimedia.org
> > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Guillaume Paumier
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
For a while I have had a strong sensation, possibly unjustly so, of a
highly over-complicated result. There are many good words, but I keep not
seeing a simple, concise, intuitively understood statement. I feel we are
still missing an understandable elevator pitch. If asked, I seriously
doubt I would be able to explain where things are headed.

It is easy to explain in a complicated way. It is very hard to explain it
simply. Or as Einstein put it, “If you can't explain it simply, you don't
understand it well enough.”

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Guillaume Paumier <gpaumier@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> If you feel a strong urge to reject the text, there is obviously nothing
> preventing anyone from creating a Meta-Wiki page to that purpose. However,
> I would first ask to reflect on the process, its outcome, and where it's
> going.
>
> Strategy is complicated. Building a movement strategy even more so [
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/19/wikimedia-strategy-2030-discussions/
> ]. One person's serious issue may be another person's slight preference.
> People's serious issues may be at odds with each other (and I can tell you
> from experience that they are indeed). Balancing all those priorities is a
> difficult exercise, and I certainly don't claim to have done it perfectly.
> But I do think the outcome we've arrived at represents the shared vision of
> a large part of the movement.
>
> As I was writing, rewriting and editing the text of the direction, I did
> consider everything that was shared on the talk page, and the last version
> is indeed based on those comments, as well as those shared during multiple
> Wikimania sessions, individual chats, comments from the Drafting group,
> from affiliates, from staff, and so on.
>
> While I did consider all of those, I didn't respond to every single
> comment, and there is little I can do about that except apologize and
> endeavor to do better. I should have set clearer expectations that not
> every comment would be integrated in the text. I ran into an issue all too
> familiar in the Wikiverse where one person had to integrate comments and
> feedback from a large group of people at the same time.
>
> High-level vision and strategy integration isn't really something that can
> be spread across a group of people as easily as writing an encyclopedia
> article, and so I ended up being a bottleneck for responding to comments. I
> had to prioritize what I deemed were issues that were shared by a large
> group, and those that seemed to be more individual concerns.
>
> Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not the "everything must be positive,
> fantastic, yeehaw-we-are-number-one" type. If anything, I'm rather the
> opposite, as I think many Wikimedians are. If we had unlimited time, I'd
> probably continue to edit the draft for years, and I'm sure there would be
> other perfectionists to feed my obsession.
>
> However, others in my personal and professional circles have helped me
> realize in the past few weeks that even getting to this stage of the
> process is remarkable. As Wikimedians, we often focus on what's wrong and
> needs fixing. Sometimes, our negativity bias leads us to lose focus of the
> accomplishments. This can clash with the typical American culture, but I
> think somewhere in the middle is where those respective tunnel visions
> widen and meet.
>
> One thing I've learned from Ed Bland, my co-architect during this process,
> is that sometimes things can't be perfect. Sometimes, excellence means
> recognizing when something is "good enough" and getting out of the
> asymptotic editing and decision paralysis loop. It means accepting that a
> few things annoy us so that a larger group of people is excited and
> motivated to participate.
>
> From everything I've heard and read in the past two months, the last
> version of the direction is agreeable to a large part of individuals,
> groups, and organizations that have been involved in the process. Not
> everyone agrees with everything in the document, even within the
> Foundation, and even me. But enough people across the movement agree with
> enough of the document that we can all use it as a starting point for the
> next phase of discussions about roles, resources, and responsibilities.
>
> I do hope that many of you will consider endorsing the direction in a few
> weeks. While I won't claim to know everyone involved, I think I know you
> enough, Ziko and Fæ, from your work and long-time commitment in the
> movement, to venture that there is more in this document that you agree
> with than that you disagree with. I hope that the prospect of moving in a
> shared direction will outweigh the possible annoyances. And so I hope that
> we'll endorse the direction together, even if it's in our typically
> Wikimedian begrudging fashion.
>
>
> 2017-10-02 6:56 GMT-07:00 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hello Katherine,
> >
> > This is actually sad news. In my opinion, the draft is far away from
> being
> > a useful and appropriate document for our future.
> >
> > The serious issues from the talk page are only partially addressed in the
> > rewrite. So I contest your claim: "The version on Meta-Wiki is based on
> the
> > feedback you offered."
> >
> > You have announced that organizations and individuals are invited to
> > endorse the draft. Will there also be a possibility to reject the draft?
> I
> > remember the 2011 image filter referendum, when the WMF asked the
> community
> > how important it finds the filter, but not giving the option to be
> against
> > it.
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&
> > uselang=en
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_
> referendum/en&uselang=en>
> >
> > The drafts tries to enforce a new definition of the "community": "from
> > editors to donors, to organizers, and beyond". I thought that "community"
> > were people who are contributing to the wiki Wikipedia on a regular basis
> > as volunteers.
> >
> > I am very positive of having an open Wikimedia *movement*. But if in
> future
> > more or less everybody will be *community*: that is in fact abolishing
> the
> > community.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Ziko van Dijk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-09-30 22:28 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org>:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
> > > including your most recent input into the lastest version of the
> movement
> > > strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]
> > >
> > > We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
> > > Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
> > > endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
> > > thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you
> > have
> > > made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared
> > strategic
> > > direction.
> > >
> > > In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will
> involve
> > > developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have
> built
> > > together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will
> of
> > > course offer an update as they become available.
> > >
> > > *Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on
> the
> > > draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> > > feedback you offered.
> > >
> > > *Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
> > > organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be
> > invited
> > > to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
> > > building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process
> > and
> > > timeline.
> > >
> > > *Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the
> > volunteers,
> > > staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
> > > transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new
> > ones
> > > created in their place. We'll keep you updated.
> > >
> > > *Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
> > > Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual
> > Wikimedia
> > > CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
> > > series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for
> > CEE.[3]
> > > Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for
> > such
> > > a wonderful event!
> > >
> > > *In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate
> > these
> > > updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking
> > to
> > > the Communications department about keeping them going once the
> strategic
> > > planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep
> > the
> > > feedback coming.
> > >
> > > Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
> > > often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
> > > affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in
> touch
> > > with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support
> we
> > > can.
> > >
> > > Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in
> > the
> > > process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We
> invite
> > > you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]
> > >
> > > We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
> > > incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy.
> Thank
> > > you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
> > > more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.
> > >
> > > Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),
> > >
> > > Katherine
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/
> > 2017/Direction
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
> > > [3]
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
> > > E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
> > > [4]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> > > September/088654.html
> > > [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters
> > >
> > > --
> > > Katherine Maher
> > > Executive Director
> > >
> > > *We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> > > San Francisco, CA 94104
> > >
> > > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> > > +1 (415) 712 4873
> > > kmaher@wikimedia.org
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Joseph,
>
> We must distinguish between the community, the movement and partners of the
> movement.
>
> The Wikimedia movement is not a community, it consists of several
> communities. Such as the community of Wikipedia in French, of Wikidata or
> of Mediawiki.org.
>
> Staffers of the WMF are part of the movement, as the WMF is part of the
> movement, as a chapter is part of the movement. Individual staff members or
> chapter board members can belong to communities.
>
> Donors can be part of the movement, if they like to see themselves as such.
> I doubt that many people who donate 10 euros think of themselves as
> "community".
>
> Staff from our GLAM partners are partners, not community, not movement.
>
> I wonder if the WMF will say in future "we asked the community and it
> approved it", what will be the meaning of "the community"?
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko



Reading between the lines of statements like "Knowledge as a service",
"essential infrastructure", "tools for allies and partners to organize and
exchange free knowledge beyond Wikimedia", etc., my sense is that the
document, without saying so explicitly, is very much written from the
perspective that the likes of Google, Amazon, Apple, Bing (and anyone else
developing digital assistants and other types of knowledge delivery
platforms) should be viewed as key partners in the exchange of free
knowledge, and served accordingly, through the development of interfaces
that enable them to deliver Wikimedia content to the end user.

My problem with that is that those are all for-profit companies, while the
volunteers that contribute the free content on which these companies'
profit-making services are based are not only unpaid, but actually incur
expenses in contributing (mostly related to source access).

Given that one of the documents' stated aims is social justice, I am always
amazed that there seems to be a fairly large blind spot in the Wikimedia
universe when it comes to the starkly exploitative element in the free
knowledge economy. The assumption seems to be that volunteers can't help
contributing, that they are adequately compensated by the personal
satisfaction they derive from seeing their contributions shape the
knowledge landscape, and thus do not need to be given any special
consideration.

Given the Wikimedia Foundation's ever-increasing revenue, I'd like to see
more emphasis on reducing the costs of participation and supporting the
volunteer community, to create a little more social justice within the free
knowledge economy, bearing in mind who does the work, and who profits
financially from it.

Speaking about the future development of the knowledge landscape in
general, I would not like to see Wikimedia become the default provider of
knowledge, to the point where the origin of content is obscured and
knowledge becomes synonymous with Wikimedia content. If that's what's being
striven for, I don't like it – monopolies are inherently unhealthy, for
reasons that should be obvious. I'd like to see a more diverse and less
monolithic knowledge system in our future than that implied here. Part of
that is that knowledge providers basing their products on Wikimedia content
should always identify the relevant Wikimedia project as a source.
Knowledge is only knowledge when it is traceable to its sources, rather
than arriving "ex machina".

On a related issue, we discussed in early August the fact that Amazon's use
of Wikipedia content in the Amazon Echo appears to be partly in breach of
that principle (and indeed in breach of Wikipedia's Creative Commons
licence). We were told that Amazon would be contacted, and that we would
likely be given an update in September. But apart from a brief and
inconsequential flurry of posts last month, we do not seem to have made any
progress on this issue. Please step up your efforts in this regard: surely
it cannot be too difficult to get Amazon to state their legal rationale.

Best,
Andreas
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Hey Yuri,
IMHO, this section is the closest thing (thus far) to an 'elevator pitch'
for the direction of the movement:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity

You could probably even knock it down to "The Wikimedia movement serves
open knowledge to the world across interfaces and communities. We break
down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from
accessing and contributing to free knowledge."

Anything that short is sure to lose the nuance in the longer document
(which I'm sure we've all read!), but it might be a little closer to what
you're looking for. Adapt as necessary.

Yours,
Chris K.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Hello Guillaume,

Thank you for sharing your point of view. But I cannot agree with you that
this is a case of „negativity bias“ or „tunnel visions“ or „begrudging
fashion“. I have fundamental concerns about the redefinition of the
community and the widening of the movement‘s purpose, and I fully join
Frank Schulenburg‘s statement that the draft paper says hardly anything to
the average Wikipedian.

As I do not know your prerogatives given from above, I cannot judge about
your personal role. I don’t want to and I have nothing against you
personally, on the contrary. Indeed, you took some of the most terrible
things from the paper - such as the „oral traditions“. But they still
appear as a residue in the „Appendix“, and how could it happen in the first
place that they were ever pushed forward by the WMF? Challenge 2 called our
work with reputable sources a „Western bias“. Where did that come from? Not
from the communities (my definition), but from „experts“ such as a man who
runs a company for storytelling and claims that he can trace his ancestry
to the middle ages via „oral traditions“!

As Andreas pointed out, there is much more in the Appendix such as the
cooperations with Youtube and Google, „new incentives“ etc. and also the
opinion that „Wikimedia“ should become more „political“. Certainly, I was
against SOPA and like to see the WMF fight copyright problems. But what I
saw at Wikimania made me wonder about the common ground. The WMF is
partnering up with the ACLU that endorses the freedom of speech for the
KuKluxKlan. The WMF is already approaching EU laws from an American point
of view and dismisses the possibility that Europeans may think differently.

If we keep all those things in the draft paper and in the Appendix - the
WMF will have carte blanche to do literally anything it likes, being a
social movement fighting whatever technical, political or social inequity.
But well, the WMF will claim that that is what the „community“ wants -
given the new definition of community, that would even be true. :-(

Certainly, people can set up a page on Meta to express their concerns about
such an unready draft paper. Is this an announcement that endorsements of
the draft paper will be welcomed at the main gate, while the concerns will
have to use the backyard entrance?

Kind regards
Ziko






Guillaume Paumier <gpaumier@wikimedia.org> schrieb am Mo. 2. Okt. 2017 um
22:36:

> Hello,
>
> If you feel a strong urge to reject the text, there is obviously nothing
> preventing anyone from creating a Meta-Wiki page to that purpose. However,
> I would first ask to reflect on the process, its outcome, and where it's
> going.
>
> Strategy is complicated. Building a movement strategy even more so [
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/19/wikimedia-strategy-2030-discussions/
> ]. One person's serious issue may be another person's slight preference.
> People's serious issues may be at odds with each other (and I can tell you
> from experience that they are indeed). Balancing all those priorities is a
> difficult exercise, and I certainly don't claim to have done it perfectly.
> But I do think the outcome we've arrived at represents the shared vision of
> a large part of the movement.
>
> As I was writing, rewriting and editing the text of the direction, I did
> consider everything that was shared on the talk page, and the last version
> is indeed based on those comments, as well as those shared during multiple
> Wikimania sessions, individual chats, comments from the Drafting group,
> from affiliates, from staff, and so on.
>
> While I did consider all of those, I didn't respond to every single
> comment, and there is little I can do about that except apologize and
> endeavor to do better. I should have set clearer expectations that not
> every comment would be integrated in the text. I ran into an issue all too
> familiar in the Wikiverse where one person had to integrate comments and
> feedback from a large group of people at the same time.
>
> High-level vision and strategy integration isn't really something that can
> be spread across a group of people as easily as writing an encyclopedia
> article, and so I ended up being a bottleneck for responding to comments. I
> had to prioritize what I deemed were issues that were shared by a large
> group, and those that seemed to be more individual concerns.
>
> Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not the "everything must be positive,
> fantastic, yeehaw-we-are-number-one" type. If anything, I'm rather the
> opposite, as I think many Wikimedians are. If we had unlimited time, I'd
> probably continue to edit the draft for years, and I'm sure there would be
> other perfectionists to feed my obsession.
>
> However, others in my personal and professional circles have helped me
> realize in the past few weeks that even getting to this stage of the
> process is remarkable. As Wikimedians, we often focus on what's wrong and
> needs fixing. Sometimes, our negativity bias leads us to lose focus of the
> accomplishments. This can clash with the typical American culture, but I
> think somewhere in the middle is where those respective tunnel visions
> widen and meet.
>
> One thing I've learned from Ed Bland, my co-architect during this process,
> is that sometimes things can't be perfect. Sometimes, excellence means
> recognizing when something is "good enough" and getting out of the
> asymptotic editing and decision paralysis loop. It means accepting that a
> few things annoy us so that a larger group of people is excited and
> motivated to participate.
>
> From everything I've heard and read in the past two months, the last
> version of the direction is agreeable to a large part of individuals,
> groups, and organizations that have been involved in the process. Not
> everyone agrees with everything in the document, even within the
> Foundation, and even me. But enough people across the movement agree with
> enough of the document that we can all use it as a starting point for the
> next phase of discussions about roles, resources, and responsibilities.
>
> I do hope that many of you will consider endorsing the direction in a few
> weeks. While I won't claim to know everyone involved, I think I know you
> enough, Ziko and Fæ, from your work and long-time commitment in the
> movement, to venture that there is more in this document that you agree
> with than that you disagree with. I hope that the prospect of moving in a
> shared direction will outweigh the possible annoyances. And so I hope that
> we'll endorse the direction together, even if it's in our typically
> Wikimedian begrudging fashion.
>
>
> 2017-10-02 6:56 GMT-07:00 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hello Katherine,
> >
> > This is actually sad news. In my opinion, the draft is far away from
> being
> > a useful and appropriate document for our future.
> >
> > The serious issues from the talk page are only partially addressed in the
> > rewrite. So I contest your claim: "The version on Meta-Wiki is based on
> the
> > feedback you offered."
> >
> > You have announced that organizations and individuals are invited to
> > endorse the draft. Will there also be a possibility to reject the draft?
> I
> > remember the 2011 image filter referendum, when the WMF asked the
> community
> > how important it finds the filter, but not giving the option to be
> against
> > it.
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&
> > uselang=en
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_referendum/en&uselang=en
> >
> >
> > The drafts tries to enforce a new definition of the "community": "from
> > editors to donors, to organizers, and beyond". I thought that "community"
> > were people who are contributing to the wiki Wikipedia on a regular basis
> > as volunteers.
> >
> > I am very positive of having an open Wikimedia *movement*. But if in
> future
> > more or less everybody will be *community*: that is in fact abolishing
> the
> > community.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Ziko van Dijk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-09-30 22:28 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org>:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Since my update last month, we have been collecting, processing, and
> > > including your most recent input into the lastest version of the
> movement
> > > strategic direction. This version is available on Meta-Wiki.[1]
> > >
> > > We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow, October 1.
> > > Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and groups to
> > > endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share my greatest
> > > thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many of you
> > have
> > > made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a shared
> > strategic
> > > direction.
> > >
> > > In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which will
> involve
> > > developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we have
> built
> > > together. I do not have many more details to share right now, but will
> of
> > > course offer an update as they become available.
> > >
> > > *Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on
> the
> > > draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is based on the
> > > feedback you offered.
> > >
> > > *Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes tomorrow,
> > > organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement will be
> > invited
> > > to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the future we are
> > > building together. We'll be sending an update next week on the process
> > and
> > > timeline.
> > >
> > > *Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to the
> > volunteers,
> > > staff, and contractors who came together to make this possible! As we
> > > transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded and new
> > ones
> > > created in their place. We'll keep you updated.
> > >
> > > *Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join Wikimedians from
> > > Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth annual
> > Wikimedia
> > > CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel Vaidla led a
> > > series of discussions on the direction, including what it means for
> > CEE.[3]
> > > Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the attendees for
> > such
> > > a wonderful event!
> > >
> > > *In other news.* I've heard from many people how much you appreciate
> > these
> > > updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on. I'm talking
> > to
> > > the Communications department about keeping them going once the
> strategic
> > > planning process concludes, with a focus on more general updates. Keep
> > the
> > > feedback coming.
> > >
> > > Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its incredible and
> > > often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many within the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which have been
> > > affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have been in
> touch
> > > with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer any support
> we
> > > can.
> > >
> > > Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the Foundation is in
> > the
> > > process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery Tower. We
> invite
> > > you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]
> > >
> > > We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process, and I am
> > > incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the strategy.
> Thank
> > > you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this process. We have
> > > more work ahead but should be proud of what we have achieved already.
> > >
> > > Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),
> > >
> > > Katherine
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/
> > 2017/Direction
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2017
> > > [3]
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
> > > E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
> > > [4]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> > > September/088654.html
> > > [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_headquarters
> > >
> > > --
> > > Katherine Maher
> > > Executive Director
> > >
> > > *We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> > > San Francisco, CA 94104
> > >
> > > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> > > +1 (415) 712 4873
> > > kmaher@wikimedia.org
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

> Reading between the lines of statements like "Knowledge as a service",
> "essential infrastructure", "tools for allies and partners to organize and
> exchange free knowledge beyond Wikimedia", etc., my sense is that the
> document, without saying so explicitly, is very much written from the
> perspective that the likes of Google, Amazon, Apple, Bing (and anyone else
> developing digital assistants and other types of knowledge delivery
> platforms) should be viewed as key partners in the exchange of free
> knowledge, and served accordingly, through the development of interfaces
> that enable them to deliver Wikimedia content to the end user.
>
> My problem with that is that those are all for-profit companies, while the
> volunteers that contribute the free content on which these companies'
> profit-making services are based are not only unpaid, but actually incur
> expenses in contributing (mostly related to source access).

This seems to be a somewhat prejudiced "reading between the lines".
For-profits like Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft will extract as much
information as they can from as many sources as they can giving back
as little as they have to (which includes some activity designed to
maintain and increase goodwill, which itself has value), _regardless
of what Wikimedia does or doesn't do_. They have built knowledge
graphs without the use of Wikidata and without significant assistance
from WMF, incorporating information from countless proprietary sources
alongside free sources.

The power of an open, nonprofit approach to "knowledge as a service"
is precisely to democratize access to knowledge graph information: to
make it available to nonprofits, public institutions, communities,
individuals. This includes projects like the "Structured Data for
Wikimedia Commons" effort, which is a potential game-changer for
institutions like galleries, libraries, archives and museums.

Nor is such an approach inherently monopolistic: quite the opposite.
Wikidata is well-suited for a certain class of data-related problems
but not so much for others. Everything around Wikidata is evolving in
the direction of federation: federated queries across multiple open
datasets, federated installations of the Wikibase software, and so on.
If anything, it seems likely that a greater emphasis on "knowledge as
a service" will unavoidably decentralize influence and control, and
bring knowledge from other knowledge providers into the Wikimedia
context.

I had no involvement with this document and don't know what focusing
on "knowledge of a service" really will mean in practice. But if it
means things like improving Wikidata, building better APIs and content
formats, building better Labs^WCloud infrastructure, then the crucial
point is not that companies may benefit from such work, but that
_everybody else does, too_. And that is what distinguishes it from the
prevailing extract-and-monetize paradigm. For-profits exploting free
knowledge projects for commercial gain? That's the _current state_. To
change it, we have to make it easier to replicate what they are doing:
through open data, open APIs, open code.

Erik

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Hi Erik,


Nice to hear from you.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The power of an open, nonprofit approach to "knowledge as a service"
> is precisely to democratize access to knowledge graph information: to
> make it available to nonprofits, public institutions, communities,
> individuals. This includes projects like the "Structured Data for
> Wikimedia Commons" effort, which is a potential game-changer for
> institutions like galleries, libraries, archives and museums.
>
> Nor is such an approach inherently monopolistic: quite the opposite.
> Wikidata is well-suited for a certain class of data-related problems
> but not so much for others. Everything around Wikidata is evolving in
> the direction of federation: federated queries across multiple open
> datasets, federated installations of the Wikibase software, and so on.
> If anything, it seems likely that a greater emphasis on "knowledge as
> a service" will unavoidably decentralize influence and control, and
> bring knowledge from other knowledge providers into the Wikimedia
> context.
>


... and it will all become one free mush everyone copies to make a buck. We
are already in a situation today where anyone asking Siri, the Amazon Echo,
Google or Bing about a topic is likely to get the same answer from all of
them, because they all import Wikimedia content, which comes free of
charge. I find that worrying, because as an information delivery system,
it’s not robust. You change one source, and all the other sources change as
well. That's a huge vulnerability. No one looking at the system as a whole
would design it that way.


Internet manipulation is a big topic in the news these days. We have
millions of people in the United States and UK wondering whether
sophisticated, targeted online manipulation put Trump into the White House
and took Britain out of the EU.[1] The same people that once expressed
unadulterated optimism about the Internet’s effect on the world, believing
it would democratise and decentralise everything (a related Berners-Lee
statement is quoted approvingly in the draft Appendix[2]), are now sounding
alarms that the Internet has opened new and far more insidious avenues of
influence, among them targeted ads and viral lies.[3]


If Wikimedia content does come to play the essential role envisaged, anyone
with a vested interest will have a powerful motive to try and subvert this
knowledge base, using the most sophisticated SEO, AI, cyberattack and
socio-political methods known today or yet to be imagined. Do we really
expect that Wikimedia will somehow be immune to such attacks? Do we expect
that volunteers will be able to keep up with this in real time?


The draft Appendix states that "In a world where some try to limit,
control, or manipulate information, we seek to be a beacon of facts,
openness, and good faith". No one can criticise such aspirations. But this
upbeat and self-flattering message ignores that on its present scale,
Wikimedia content has already been demonstrated to be politically
corruptible, serving as a handy and welcome tool in the hands of precisely
those who do seek to "limit, control or manipulate information."[4][5][6]


Even if we agree on nothing else, and you choose to be a blue-eyed optimist
and I a jaundiced pessimist, we should be able to agree that an openly
editable online database underpinning the content delivery of literally
more AI tools and digital assistants than there are people on the planet[7]
will be a sitting duck for bad-faith actors, from conflicted editors,
political factions and SEO experts to government-sponsored hackers, and
that there will be challenges to be faced and prepared for.

Speaking about AI development, Elon Musk warned earlier this year that
people will sometimes "get so engrossed in their work that they don’t
really realize the ramifications of what they’re doing"[8] and that even
with the best intentions, it's perfectly possible to "produce something
evil by accident."[9] He's right.


People get carried away by new technological possibilities, and fail to
look at potential downsides of what they are doing. They’re not always
obvious. I mean, take Facebook. Millions of people flocked to the free
platform, using it as a welcome means to stay in touch with friends and
family. Nobody in their wildest dreams would have thought that their
participation in that trend, just so they could keep up with cousin Pete
and reconnect with old school friends, might one day undermine democracy.
Yet that is exactly what is being investigated now.[1] As we speak,
Congress and the Senate Intelligence Committee are still trying to find out
from Facebook, Twitter and Google exactly what happened.[10] Meanwhile,
Trump is in power. Whatever the eventual findings, these very public
discussions and worries should make clear that successful, well-timed
manipulation of content delivered automatically by AI tools to vast numbers
of people can have staggering global consequences that removal of corrupted
content after the event won't undo.


Life teaches that every action has unforeseen consequences, and that the
path to hell is paved with the best intentions. Free online services seemed
like a wonderful thing. It’s taken us years to figure out that there are
new and unexpected prices to be paid.


I would have loved to have seen a risk assessment attached to this
strategic direction, along with an open discussion of potential negative
impacts on humanity that might result from a system where one knowledge
service provider has such a global impact. Knowing that monocultures are
inherently more unstable and more easily corrupted than pluralist systems,
what are the worst things that could happen? What sort of fail-safes and
redundancies would make the overall system less vulnerable? There is still
time to do that work, I guess, and I’d suggest it would be work worth doing
and consulting a broad range of experts over.




> I had no involvement with this document and don't know what focusing
> on "knowledge of a service" really will mean in practice. But if it
> means things like improving Wikidata, building better APIs and content
> formats, building better Labs^WCloud infrastructure, then the crucial
> point is not that companies may benefit from such work, but that
> _everybody else does, too_. And that is what distinguishes it from the
> prevailing extract-and-monetize paradigm. For-profits exploting free
> knowledge projects for commercial gain? That's the _current state_. To
> change it, we have to make it easier to replicate what they are doing:
> through open data, open APIs, open code.



You didn't really address my social justice argument. This is a much more
parochial concern, and your perspective is bound to be different, as you
personally have profited handsomely from your involvement in Wikimedia, but
is it just that some of the world's most profitable companies earn billions
from volunteers' work, gaining political power in the process, while
volunteers actually pay to go online and access or purchase the sources
they need to do their work? Yes or no?


As I've mentioned before, Google has a full digital copy somewhere on its
servers of pretty much any source any Wikimedian might ever want to access.
When the WMF talks to Google, I'd really like them to inquire, for once,
what Google could do for volunteers, rather than what volunteers could do
for Google.


Best,

Andreas


[1]
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction/Appendix&oldid=17074044#The_sum_of_all_knowledge
citing
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/25-years-of-the-world-wide-web-the-inventor-of-the-web-tim-berners-lee-explains-how-it-all-began-9185040.html

[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39246810

[4]
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/

[5] http://www.eurasianet.org/node/72831

[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-07/Op-ed

[7]
https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/digital-assistants-to-surpass-global-population-by-2021/

[8] http://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-world-government-summit-556211

[9]
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/elon-musk-billion-dollar-crusade-to-stop-ai-space-x

[10]
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/01/media/facebook-russia-ads-congress/index.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

> ... and it will all become one free mush everyone copies to make a buck. We
> are already in a situation today where anyone asking Siri, the Amazon Echo,
> Google or Bing about a topic is likely to get the same answer from all of
> them, because they all import Wikimedia content, which comes free of
> charge.

I wouldn't call information from Wikimedia projects a "mush", but I
think it's a good term for the proprietary amalgamation of information
and data from many sources, often without any regard for the
reliability of the source. Google is the king of such gooey
amalgamation. Its home assistant has been known to give answers like
this, sourced to "secretsofthefed.com":

"According to details exposed in Western Center for Journalism's
exclusive video, not only could Obama be in be in bed with the
communist Chinese, but Obama may in fact be planning a
communist coup d'état at the end of his term in 2016."

See, e.g., this article

https://theoutline.com/post/1192/google-s-featured-snippets-are-worse-than-fake-news

for other egregious examples specifically from Google's featured responses.

It's certainly true that Wikipedia is an easy target for ingestion,
not just because of its copyright status, but also because it is
comprehensive, multilingual, unrestricted (as in, not behind a paywall
or rate limit), and even fully available for download. But copyright
status is not really a major barrier once you are talking about fact
extraction and "fair use" snippets.

For Google, I suggest a query like "when was slavery abolished?"
followed by exploring the auto-suggested questions. In my case, the
first 10 questions point to snippets from:

- pbs.org (twice)
- USA Today
- Reuters
- archives.gov
- Wikipedia (twice)
- infoplease.com
- ourdocuments.gov
- nationalarchives.gov.uk

Even for its fact boxes, where Wikipedia excerpts often feature
prominently, Google does not exclusively rely on it; the tabular data
contains information not found in any Wikimedia project. Even the
textual blurbs often come from sources of unclear provenance; for
example, country blurb text (try googling "France" or "Russia") is not
from WP.

This amalgamation will get ever more sophisticated and more
proprietary (specific to each of these corporations) as AI improves.
That's because it lets companies pry apart "facts" and "expression":
the former are uncopyrightable. As textual understanding of AIs
improves, more information can be summarized and presented without
even invoking "fair use", much in the same way as Wikipedia itself
summarizes sources.

It's the universe of linked open data (Wikipedia/Wikidata,
OpenStreetMap, and other open datasets) that keeps the space at least
somewhat competitive, by giving players without much of a foothold a
starting point from which to build. If Wikimedia did not exist, a
smaller number of commercial players would wield greater power, due to
the higher relative payoff of large investments in data mining and AI.

> I find that worrying, because as an information delivery system,
> it’s not robust. You change one source, and all the other sources
> change as well.

As noted above, this is not actually what is happening. Commercial
players don't want to limit themselves to free/open data; they want to
use AI to extract as much information about the world as possible so
they can answer as many queries as possible.

And for most of the sources amalgamated in this manner, if provenance
is indicated at all, we don't find any of the safeguards we have for
Wikimedia content (revisioning, participatory decision-making,
transparent policies, etc.). Editability, while opening the floodgate
to a category of problems other sources don't have, is in fact also a
safeguard: making it possible to fix mistakes instead of going through
a "feedback" form that ends up who knows where.

With an eye to 2030 and WMF's long-term direction, I do think it's
worth thinking about Wikidata's centrality, and I would agree with you
at least that the phrase "the essential infrastructure of the
ecosystem" does overstate what I think WMF should aspire to (the
"essential infrastructure" should consist of many open components
maintained by different groups). But beyond that I think you're
reading stuff into the statement that isn't there.

Wikidata in particular is best seen not as the singular source of
truth, but as an important hub in a network of open data providers --
primarily governments, public institutions, nonprofits. This is
consistent with recent developments around Wikidata such as query
federation.

Wikidata will often provide a shallow first level of information about
a subject, while other linked sources provide deeper information. The
more structured the information, the easier it becomes to validate in
an automatic fashion that, for example, the subset of country
population time series data represented in Wikidata is an accurate
representation of the source material. Even when a large source
dataset is mirrored by Wikimedia (for low-latency visualization, say),
you can hash it, digitally sign it, and restrict modifiability of
copies.

If we expose the history, provenance and structure of information, and
the connections between sources, we can actually make the information
more resilient against manipulation than if it is merely a piece of
text in an article, some number in an {{infobox}} template or some
"factoid" in a proprietary knowledge graph.

> is it just that some of the world's most profitable companies earn billions
> from volunteers' work, gaining political power in the process, while
> volunteers actually pay to go online and access or purchase the sources
> they need to do their work? Yes or no?

I don't accept your framing. Search the way it used to be (with
algorithms primarily tuned for relevance of results) was a fair deal
for everyone involved: you put stuff on the web, it gets indexed and
people are able to find it; the search engines make money by putting
ads on the search result page. The amalgamation of information into
knowledge graphs that deliver concise answers directly (however
inadequate) changes the dynamic significantly.

It accords ever greater power to the maintainers of these proprietary
graphs which, I hasten to repeat, incorporate information well beyond
just Wikimedia's, and which frequently fail to indicate provenance in
an adequate manner. And, as the example at the beginning of this
message shows, it leads to "information pollution", with fake news,
conspiracy theories and pseudoscience leaking into semi-authoritative
instant answers.

I don't think the social justice problem here is that these companies
make a profit, but that they function more and more as gatekeepers and
curators of knowledge, a role for which they're ill-equipped and which
civil society should be reluctant to give them.

But the proprietary knowledge graphs are valuable to users in ways
that the previous generation of search engines was not. Interacting
with a device like you would with a human being ("Alexa/Google/Siri,
is yarrow edible?") makes knowledge more accessible and usable,
including to people who have difficulty reading long texts, or who are
not literate at all. In this sense I don't think WMF should ever find
itself in the position to argue _against_ inclusion of information
from Wikimedia projects in these applications.

The applications themselves are not the problem; the centralized
gatekeeper control is. Knowledge as an open service (and network) is
actually the solution to that root problem. It's how we weaken and
perhaps even break the control of the gatekeepers. Your critique seems
to boil down to "Let's ask Google for more crumbs". In spite of all
your anti-corporate social justice rhetoric, that seems to be the path
to developing a one-sided dependency relationship.

To be clear, I'm in favor of corporations giving more to the commons,
though in my ideal world, that would happen through aggressive
taxation and greater public investment (especially in schools,
universities and GLAMs). I have every confidence that WMF does in fact
ask for as much as it can be expected to in conversations with
corporations, but it's not clear what you're suggesting should happen
if the corporations say no.

Erik

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Hi all,

This is super interesting and important discussion. One idea.

> On 10 Oct 2017, at 3.44, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
> And for most of the sources amalgamated in this manner, if provenance
> is indicated at all, we don't find any of the safeguards we have for
> Wikimedia content (revisioning, participatory decision-making,
> transparent policies, etc.). Editability, while opening the floodgate
> to a category of problems other sources don't have, is in fact also a
> safeguard: making it possible to fix mistakes instead of going through
> a "feedback" form that ends up who knows where.

Would it make sense to help and maybe even demand the proprietary service providers and AI application (Siri, Google, etc) using the Wikimedia content to include a statement if their reuse is from a "native version of live Wikimedia” and also this way tell that they do not?

I think this can be compared to the consumer movement requiring that the origin of food products should be trackable all they way to the original producer (eg. farm).

I was thinking that if the service providers are taking data dumps of Wikimedia for their own use, today we do not know if they have made some edits in it.

- Teemu
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Leinonen Teemu <teemu.leinonen@aalto.fi> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is super interesting and important discussion. One idea.
>
>> On 10 Oct 2017, at 3.44, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And for most of the sources amalgamated in this manner, if provenance
>> is indicated at all, we don't find any of the safeguards we have for
>> Wikimedia content (revisioning, participatory decision-making,
>> transparent policies, etc.). Editability, while opening the floodgate
>> to a category of problems other sources don't have, is in fact also a
>> safeguard: making it possible to fix mistakes instead of going through
>> a "feedback" form that ends up who knows where.
>
> Would it make sense to help and maybe even demand the proprietary service providers and AI application (Siri, Google, etc) using the Wikimedia content to include a statement if their reuse is from a "native version of live Wikimedia” and also this way tell that they do not?

That is a fantastic idea! CC-BY-SA says, "You must attribute the work
in the manner specified by the author or licensor."

Is there anything preventing us from specifying attribution in a
manner that makes clear the revision date?

I would love to see the re-users have to do that. Are there any downsides?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call information from Wikimedia projects a "mush", but I
> think it's a good term for the proprietary amalgamation of information
> and data from many sources, often without any regard for the
> reliability of the source....

Is there an award for the most intelligent and insightful contribution
to this list all year? If so I would like to nominate this email.
Thanks Erik!

Regards,

Chris

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:43 AM, James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Leinonen Teemu <teemu.leinonen@aalto.fi>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is super interesting and important discussion. One idea.
> >
> >> On 10 Oct 2017, at 3.44, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> And for most of the sources amalgamated in this manner, if provenance
> >> is indicated at all, we don't find any of the safeguards we have for
> >> Wikimedia content (revisioning, participatory decision-making,
> >> transparent policies, etc.). Editability, while opening the floodgate
> >> to a category of problems other sources don't have, is in fact also a
> >> safeguard: making it possible to fix mistakes instead of going through
> >> a "feedback" form that ends up who knows where.
> >
> > Would it make sense to help and maybe even demand the proprietary
> service providers and AI application (Siri, Google, etc) using the
> Wikimedia content to include a statement if their reuse is from a "native
> version of live Wikimedia” and also this way tell that they do not?
>
> That is a fantastic idea! CC-BY-SA says, "You must attribute the work
> in the manner specified by the author or licensor."
>
> Is there anything preventing us from specifying attribution in a
> manner that makes clear the revision date?
>


Well, Wikidata was, after some to-and-fro and a little controversy,
assigned the CC-0 licence, which does not require any attribution
whatsoever from re-users. In my view, that was a really big mistake,
because it obscures data provenance for the end user.

Given the amount of data Wikidata bots import from Wikipedia, is was also
quite possibly a violation of Wikipedia's content licence.

The legal situation is admittedly complex, but don't let anyone tell you
that "facts cannot be copyrighted, and that is the end of it." The WMF's
own legal department disagreed with that view.[1]



> I would love to see the re-users have to do that. Are there any downsides?



As for re-users of CC-BY-SA Wikipedia content, I refer you to the Amazon
Echo discussion that started here on this list in July:

https://lists.gt.net/wiki/foundation/828583

In that discussion, concerns were expressed that the Amazon Echo's "Alexa"
voice assistant reads snippets from Wikipedia in response to queries,
without identifying Wikipedia as the source. Adele Vrana said she would
inquire with Amazon and get back to us probably in September. Last I heard
from her, she said she was continuing to ping Amazon, but hadn't heard
anything. This month, Adele has been out of the office and will be for
another week or so.

I think this is a fairly important matter, and I'm somewhat disappointed
with the lack of progress to date. It's a potential thin-end-of-the-wedge
thing: if the WMF lets Amazon get away with infringing the CC licence (if
indeed it is an infringement – to determine that, we would first need to
have a response and legal rationale from Amazon and have lawyers examine
it), then others will follow.

My fear – largely based on the Wikidata decision – is that some within the
WMF are not really interested in enforcing attribution, preferring to make
things as convenient as possible for for-profit companies in order to
maximise re-use. I'd find that repugnant, because transparent data
provenance is important for a whole host of reasons. But I am not convinced
WMF folks see it as important at all. The lack of response to date to the
Echo question tends to reinforce my doubts in that regard.

Best,
Andreas

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Hi Erik,

Really meaty post. Great stuff. Comments below.


On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... and it will all become one free mush everyone copies to make a buck.
> We
> > are already in a situation today where anyone asking Siri, the Amazon
> Echo,
> > Google or Bing about a topic is likely to get the same answer from all of
> > them, because they all import Wikimedia content, which comes free of
> > charge.
>
> I wouldn't call information from Wikimedia projects a "mush", but I
> think it's a good term for the proprietary amalgamation of information
> and data from many sources, often without any regard for the
> reliability of the source.



In my view, whether it's a mush or not largely depends on how it is used,
and to what extent it mixes solid and flaky, verifiable and non-verifiable
content.

Wikidata has its own problems in that regard that have triggered ongoing
discussions and concerns on the English Wikipedia.[1] Wikidata does not
require users to cite sources. It contains millions of statements sourced
only to some Wikipedia language version, without identification of the
article, article version, or source originally cited in that Wikipedia (if
any) at the time of import. It lacks effective Verifiability and BLP
policies.



> Google is the king of such gooey
> amalgamation. Its home assistant has been known to give answers like
> this, sourced to "secretsofthefed.com":
>
> "According to details exposed in Western Center for Journalism's
> exclusive video, not only could Obama be in be in bed with the
> communist Chinese, but Obama may in fact be planning a
> communist coup d'état at the end of his term in 2016."
>
> See, e.g., this article
>
> https://theoutline.com/post/1192/google-s-featured-
> snippets-are-worse-than-fake-news
>
> for other egregious examples specifically from Google's featured responses.
>


Thanks for the link to that article. Really important. I'm in complete
agreement with you on that.



> For Google, I suggest a query like "when was slavery abolished?"
> followed by exploring the auto-suggested questions. In my case, the
> first 10 questions point to snippets from:
>
> - pbs.org (twice)
> - USA Today
> - Reuters
> - archives.gov
> - Wikipedia (twice)
> - infoplease.com
> - ourdocuments.gov
> - nationalarchives.gov.uk



Being on the other side of the pond, I got slightly different results. Here
they are, just for fun: Wikipedia is in the answer box, and 4 of the first
10 suggested questions link to Wikipedia:

– makewav.es
– Reuters
– archives.gov
– Wikipedia
– nationalarchives.gov.uk
– Wikipedia
– abolition.e2bn.org
– Wikipedia
– USA Today
– Wikipedia

(The 11th linked to Wikibooks.)



> It's the universe of linked open data (Wikipedia/Wikidata,
> OpenStreetMap, and other open datasets) that keeps the space at least
> somewhat competitive, by giving players without much of a foothold a
> starting point from which to build. If Wikimedia did not exist, a
> smaller number of commercial players would wield greater power, due to
> the higher relative payoff of large investments in data mining and AI.
>


Yes, arguably so, although various ways remain in which Wikimedia might
become a victim of its own success, depending on the amount of ubiquity its
content achieves. The more ubiquitous it is, the higher the stakes, and the
higher the pressure on volunteers will become.



> > I find that worrying, because as an information delivery system,
> > it’s not robust. You change one source, and all the other sources
> > change as well.
>
> As noted above, this is not actually what is happening. Commercial
> players don't want to limit themselves to free/open data; they want to
> use AI to extract as much information about the world as possible so
> they can answer as many queries as possible.
>


To the far-from-negligible extent that they all do and will regurgitate
Wikimedia content, it will happen.

By the same token, their drawing on alternative sources as well as
Wikimedia content, even proprietary ones, is also potentially a good thing.
It increases diversity.



> And for most of the sources amalgamated in this manner, if provenance
> is indicated at all, we don't find any of the safeguards we have for
> Wikimedia content (revisioning, participatory decision-making,
> transparent policies, etc.). Editability, while opening the floodgate
> to a category of problems other sources don't have, is in fact also a
> safeguard: making it possible to fix mistakes instead of going through
> a "feedback" form that ends up who knows where.
>


Indeed, but it helps if re-users indicate provenance. If a digital voice
assistant propagates a Wikimedia mistake without telling users where it got
its information from, then there is not even a feedback form. Editability
is of no help at all if people can't find the source.

This is similar to the problem of vandalised Wikidata descriptions being
displayed in Wikipedia mobile views: people can't figure out where the
nonsense comes from, and where to change it.



> With an eye to 2030 and WMF's long-term direction, I do think it's
> worth thinking about Wikidata's centrality, and I would agree with you
> at least that the phrase "the essential infrastructure of the
> ecosystem" does overstate what I think WMF should aspire to (the
> "essential infrastructure" should consist of many open components
> maintained by different groups). But beyond that I think you're
> reading stuff into the statement that isn't there.
>


I'm not sure I read much more into it than that – you've summarised my main
concern.



> Wikidata in particular is best seen not as the singular source of
> truth, but as an important hub in a network of open data providers --
> primarily governments, public institutions, nonprofits. This is
> consistent with recent developments around Wikidata such as query
> federation.
>


As Wikidata imports all that material, however, there is a risk that
re-users (answer engines, digital assistants) will simply focus on mining
Wikidata.

There is also the risk of circular relationships – Wikidata importing
content from databases that in turn import some of their own content from
Wikidata. You can end up with databases all agreeing with each other, and
all being wrong. :/



> Wikidata will often provide a shallow first level of information about
> a subject, while other linked sources provide deeper information. The
> more structured the information, the easier it becomes to validate in
> an automatic fashion that, for example, the subset of country
> population time series data represented in Wikidata is an accurate
> representation of the source material. Even when a large source
> dataset is mirrored by Wikimedia (for low-latency visualization, say),
> you can hash it, digitally sign it, and restrict modifiability of
> copies.
>


Interesting, though I'm not aware of that being done at present.



> If we expose the history, provenance and structure of information, and
> the connections between sources, we can actually make the information
> more resilient against manipulation than if it is merely a piece of
> text in an article, some number in an {{infobox}} template or some
> "factoid" in a proprietary knowledge graph.
>


Yes, provenance – traceability – is key. But as things stand, I have seen
no evidence that WMF has a strong desire to encourage or force re-users to
provide it.



> > is it just that some of the world's most profitable companies earn
> billions
> > from volunteers' work, gaining political power in the process, while
> > volunteers actually pay to go online and access or purchase the sources
> > they need to do their work? Yes or no?
>
> I don't accept your framing. Search the way it used to be (with
> algorithms primarily tuned for relevance of results) was a fair deal
> for everyone involved: you put stuff on the web, it gets indexed and
> people are able to find it; the search engines make money by putting
> ads on the search result page. The amalgamation of information into
> knowledge graphs that deliver concise answers directly (however
> inadequate) changes the dynamic significantly.
>
> It accords ever greater power to the maintainers of these proprietary
> graphs which, I hasten to repeat, incorporate information well beyond
> just Wikimedia's, and which frequently fail to indicate provenance in
> an adequate manner. And, as the example at the beginning of this
> message shows, it leads to "information pollution", with fake news,
> conspiracy theories and pseudoscience leaking into semi-authoritative
> instant answers.
>
> I don't think the social justice problem here is that these companies
> make a profit, but that they function more and more as gatekeepers and
> curators of knowledge, a role for which they're ill-equipped and which
> civil society should be reluctant to give them.
>


I'm in violent agreement with you on that one. :)



> But the proprietary knowledge graphs are valuable to users in ways
> that the previous generation of search engines was not. Interacting
> with a device like you would with a human being ("Alexa/Google/Siri,
> is yarrow edible?") makes knowledge more accessible and usable,
> including to people who have difficulty reading long texts, or who are
> not literate at all. In this sense I don't think WMF should ever find
> itself in the position to argue _against_ inclusion of information
> from Wikimedia projects in these applications.
>


There is a distinct likelihood that they will make reading Wikipedia
articles progressively obsolete, just like the availability of Googling has
dissuaded many people from sitting down and reading a book. All the more so
if these applications fail to make their users aware that the information
comes from Wikimedia projects.



> The applications themselves are not the problem; the centralized
> gatekeeper control is. Knowledge as an open service (and network) is
> actually the solution to that root problem. It's how we weaken and
> perhaps even break the control of the gatekeepers. Your critique seems
> to boil down to "Let's ask Google for more crumbs". In spite of all
> your anti-corporate social justice rhetoric, that seems to be the path
> to developing a one-sided dependency relationship.
>


I considered that, but in the end felt that given the extent to which
Google profited from volunteers' work, it wasn't an unfair ask.



> To be clear, I'm in favor of corporations giving more to the commons,
> though in my ideal world, that would happen through aggressive
> taxation and greater public investment (especially in schools,
> universities and GLAMs). I have every confidence that WMF does in fact
> ask for as much as it can be expected to in conversations with
> corporations, but it's not clear what you're suggesting should happen
> if the corporations say no.



Publicise the fact that Google and others profit from volunteer work, and
give very little back. The world could do with more articles like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/07/22/you-dont-know-it-but-youre-working-for-facebook-for-free/

I once did a very rough back-of-an-envelope calculation based on Google's
staggering quarterly profits and its large reliance on Wikimedia content
for many of its search engine's most attractive features driving its ad
revenue. I estimated that the average Wikipedia edit (in any namespace)
brings Google something in the order of 10 cents of revenue.[2]


Again, thanks for an engaging and thought-provoking post.

Best,
Andreas


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs
(including its copious archives)
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-07-22/In_the_media#Working_for_free
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikidata has its own problems in that regard that have triggered ongoing
> discussions and concerns on the English Wikipedia.[1]

Tensions between different communities with overlapping but
non-identical objectives are unavoidable. Repository projects like
Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons provide huge payoff: they dramatically
reduce duplication of effort, enable small language communities to
benefit from the work done internationally, and can tackle a more
expansive scope than the immediate needs of existing projects. A few
examples include:

- Wiki Loves Monuments, recognized as the world's largest photo competition
- Partnerships with countless galleries, libraries, archives, and museums
- Wikidata initiatives like mySociety's "Everypolitician" project or Gene Wiki

This is not without its costs, however. Differing policies, levels of
maturity, and social expectations will always fuel some level of
conflict, and the repository approach creates huge usability
challenges. The latter is also true for internal wiki features like
templates, which shift information out of the article space,
disempowering users who no longer understand how the whole is
constructed from its parts.

I would call these usability and "legibility" issues the single
biggest challenge in the development of Wikidata, Structured Data for
Commons, and other repository functionality. Much related work has
already been done or is ticketed in Phabricator, such as the effective
propagation of changes into watchlists, article histories, and
notifications. Much more will need to follow.

With regard to the issue of citations, it's worth noting that it's
already possible to _conditionally_ load data from Wikidata, excluding
information that is unsourced or only sourced circularly (i.e. to
Wikipedia itself). [1] Template invocations can also override values
provided by Wikidata, for example, if there is a source, but it is not
considered reliable by the standards of a specific project.

> If a digital voice assistant propagates a Wikimedia mistake without telling
> users where it got its information from, then there is not even a feedback
> form. Editability is of no help at all if people can't find the source.

I'm in favor of always indicating at least provenance (something like
"Here's a quote from Wikipedia:"), even for short excerpts, and I
certainly think WMF and chapters can advocate for this practice.
However, where short excerpts are concerned, it's not at all clear
that there is a _legal_ issue here, and that full compliance with all
requirements of the license is a reasonable "ask".

Bing's search result page manages a decent compromise, I think: it
shows excerpts from Wikipedia clearly labeled as such, and it links to
the CC-BY-SA license if you expand the excerpt, e.g.:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=france

I know that over the years, many efforts have been undertaken to
document best practices for re-use, ranging from local
community-created pages to chapter guides and tools like the
"Lizenzhinweisgenerator". I don't know what the best-available of
these is nowadays, but if none exists, it might be a good idea to
develop a new, comprehensive guide that takes into account voice
applications, tabular data, and so on.

Such a guide would ideally not just be written from a license
compliance perspective, but also include recommendations, e.g., on how
to best indicate provenance, distinguishing "here's what you must do"
from "here's what we recommend".

>> Wikidata will often provide a shallow first level of information about
>> a subject, while other linked sources provide deeper information. The
>> more structured the information, the easier it becomes to validate in
>> an automatic fashion that, for example, the subset of country
>> population time series data represented in Wikidata is an accurate
>> representation of the source material. Even when a large source
>> dataset is mirrored by Wikimedia (for low-latency visualization, say),
>> you can hash it, digitally sign it, and restrict modifiability of
>> copies.

> Interesting, though I'm not aware of that being done at present.

At present, Wikidata allows users to model constraints on internal
data validity. These constraints are used for regularly generated
database reports as well as on-demand lookup via
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:ConstraintReport . This kicks
in, for example, if you put in an insane number in a population field,
or mark a country as female.

There is a project underway to also validate against external sources; see:

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase_Quality_Extensions#Special_Page_Cross-Check_with_external_databases

Wikidata still tends to deal with relatively small amounts of data; a
highly annotated item like Germany (Q183), for example, comes in at
under 1MB in uncompressed JSON form. Time series data like GDP is
often included only for a single point in time, or for a subset of the
available data. The relatively new "Data:" namespace on Commons exists
to store raw datasets; this is only used to a very limited extent so
far, but there are some examples of how such data can be visualized,
e.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Graph:Population_history

Giving volunteers more powerful tools to select and visualize data
while automating much of the effort of maintaining data integrity
seems like an achievable and strategic goal, and as these examples
show, some building blocks for this are already in place.

>> But the proprietary knowledge graphs are valuable to users in ways
>> that the previous generation of search engines was not. Interacting
>> with a device like you would with a human being ("Alexa/Google/Siri,
>> is yarrow edible?") makes knowledge more accessible and usable,
>> including to people who have difficulty reading long texts, or who are
>> not literate at all. In this sense I don't think WMF should ever find
>> itself in the position to argue _against_ inclusion of information
>> from Wikimedia projects in these applications.

> There is a distinct likelihood that they will make reading Wikipedia
> articles progressively obsolete, just like the availability of Googling has
> dissuaded many people from sitting down and reading a book.

There is an important distinction between "lookup" and "learning"; the
former is a transactional activity ("Is this country part of the Euro
zone?") and the latter an immersive one ("How did the EU come
about?"). Where we now get instant answers from home assistants or
search engines, we may have previously skimmed, or performed our own
highly optimized search in the local knowledge repository called a
"bookshelf".

In other words, even if some instant answers lead to a drop in
Wikipedia views, it would be unreasonable to assume that those views
were "reads" rather than "skims". When you're on a purely
transactional journey, you appreciate almost anything that shortens
it.

I don't think Wikimedia should fight the gravity of a user's
intentions out of its own pedagogical motives. Rather, it should make
both lookup and learning as appealing as possible. Doing well in the
"lookup" category is important to avoid handing too much control off
to gatekeepers, and being good in the "learning" category holds the
greatest promise for lasting positive impact.

As for the larger social issue, at least in the US, the youngest (most
googley) generation is the one that reads the most books, and
income/education are very strong predictors of whether people do or
not:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/19/slightly-fewer-americans-are-reading-print-books-new-survey-finds/

>> The applications themselves are not the problem; the centralized
>> gatekeeper control is. Knowledge as an open service (and network) is
>> actually the solution to that root problem. It's how we weaken and
>> perhaps even break the control of the gatekeepers. Your critique seems
>> to boil down to "Let's ask Google for more crumbs". In spite of all
>> your anti-corporate social justice rhetoric, that seems to be the path
>> to developing a one-sided dependency relationship.

> I considered that, but in the end felt that given the extent to which
> Google profited from volunteers' work, it wasn't an unfair ask.

While I think your proposal to ask Google to share access to resources
it already has digitized or licensed is worth considering, I would
suggest being very careful about the long term implications of any
such agreements. Having a single corporation control volunteers'
access to proprietary resources means that such access can also be
used as leverage down the road, or abruptly be taken away for other
reasons.

I think it would be more interesting to spin off the existing
"Wikipedia Library" into its own international organization (or home
it with an existing one), tasked with giving free knowledge
contributors (including potentially to other free knowledge projects
like OSM) access to proprietary resources, and pursuing public and
private funding of its own. The development of many relationships may
take longer, but it is more sustainable in the long run. Moreover, it
has the potential to lead to powerful collaborations with existing
public/nonprofit digitization and preservation efforts.

> Publicise the fact that Google and others profit from volunteer work, and
> give very little back. The world could do with more articles like this:
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/07/22/you-dont-know-it-but-youre-working-for-facebook-for-free/

I have plenty of criticisms of Facebook, but the fact that users don't
get paid for posting selfies isn't one of them. My thoughts on how the
free culture movement (not limited to Wikipedia) should interface with
the for-profit sector are as follows, FWIW:

1) Demand appropriate levels of taxation on private profits, [2]
sufficient investments in public education and cultural institutions,
and "open licensing" requirements on government contracts with private
corporations.

2) Require compliance with free licenses, first gently, then more
firmly. This is a game of diminishing returns, and it's most useful to
go after the most blatant and problematic cases. As noted above, "fair
use" limits should be understood and taken into consideration.

3) Encourage corporations to be "good citizens" of the free culture
world, whether it's through indicating provenance beyond what's
legally required, or by contributing directly (open source
development, knowledge/data donations, in-kind goods/services,
financial contributions). The payoff for them is goodwill and a
thriving (i.e. also profitable) open Internet that more people in more
places use for more things.

4) Build community-driven, open, nonprofit alternatives to
out-of-control corporate quasi-monopolies. As far as proprietary
knowledge graphs are concerned, I will reiterate: open data is the
solution, not the problem.

Cheers,
Erik

[1] See the getValue function in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:WikidataIB , specifically its
"onlysourced" parameter. The module also adds a convenient "Edit this
on Wikidata" link to each claim included from there.

[2] As far as Wikimedia organizations are concerned, specific tax
policy will likely always be out of scope of political advocacy, but
the other points need not be.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Erik,

Should interactive web, internet of things, or offline services
relying on Foundation encyclopedia CC-BY-SA content be required to
attribute authorship by specifying the revision date from which the
transluded content is derived?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wikidata has its own problems in that regard that have triggered ongoing
>> discussions and concerns on the English Wikipedia.[1]
>
> Tensions between different communities with overlapping but
> non-identical objectives are unavoidable. Repository projects like
> Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons provide huge payoff: they dramatically
> reduce duplication of effort, enable small language communities to
> benefit from the work done internationally, and can tackle a more
> expansive scope than the immediate needs of existing projects. A few
> examples include:
>
> - Wiki Loves Monuments, recognized as the world's largest photo competition
> - Partnerships with countless galleries, libraries, archives, and museums
> - Wikidata initiatives like mySociety's "Everypolitician" project or Gene Wiki
>
> This is not without its costs, however. Differing policies, levels of
> maturity, and social expectations will always fuel some level of
> conflict, and the repository approach creates huge usability
> challenges. The latter is also true for internal wiki features like
> templates, which shift information out of the article space,
> disempowering users who no longer understand how the whole is
> constructed from its parts.
>
> I would call these usability and "legibility" issues the single
> biggest challenge in the development of Wikidata, Structured Data for
> Commons, and other repository functionality. Much related work has
> already been done or is ticketed in Phabricator, such as the effective
> propagation of changes into watchlists, article histories, and
> notifications. Much more will need to follow.
>
> With regard to the issue of citations, it's worth noting that it's
> already possible to _conditionally_ load data from Wikidata, excluding
> information that is unsourced or only sourced circularly (i.e. to
> Wikipedia itself). [1] Template invocations can also override values
> provided by Wikidata, for example, if there is a source, but it is not
> considered reliable by the standards of a specific project.
>
>> If a digital voice assistant propagates a Wikimedia mistake without telling
>> users where it got its information from, then there is not even a feedback
>> form. Editability is of no help at all if people can't find the source.
>
> I'm in favor of always indicating at least provenance (something like
> "Here's a quote from Wikipedia:"), even for short excerpts, and I
> certainly think WMF and chapters can advocate for this practice.
> However, where short excerpts are concerned, it's not at all clear
> that there is a _legal_ issue here, and that full compliance with all
> requirements of the license is a reasonable "ask".
>
> Bing's search result page manages a decent compromise, I think: it
> shows excerpts from Wikipedia clearly labeled as such, and it links to
> the CC-BY-SA license if you expand the excerpt, e.g.:
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=france
>
> I know that over the years, many efforts have been undertaken to
> document best practices for re-use, ranging from local
> community-created pages to chapter guides and tools like the
> "Lizenzhinweisgenerator". I don't know what the best-available of
> these is nowadays, but if none exists, it might be a good idea to
> develop a new, comprehensive guide that takes into account voice
> applications, tabular data, and so on.
>
> Such a guide would ideally not just be written from a license
> compliance perspective, but also include recommendations, e.g., on how
> to best indicate provenance, distinguishing "here's what you must do"
> from "here's what we recommend".
>
>>> Wikidata will often provide a shallow first level of information about
>>> a subject, while other linked sources provide deeper information. The
>>> more structured the information, the easier it becomes to validate in
>>> an automatic fashion that, for example, the subset of country
>>> population time series data represented in Wikidata is an accurate
>>> representation of the source material. Even when a large source
>>> dataset is mirrored by Wikimedia (for low-latency visualization, say),
>>> you can hash it, digitally sign it, and restrict modifiability of
>>> copies.
>
>> Interesting, though I'm not aware of that being done at present.
>
> At present, Wikidata allows users to model constraints on internal
> data validity. These constraints are used for regularly generated
> database reports as well as on-demand lookup via
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:ConstraintReport . This kicks
> in, for example, if you put in an insane number in a population field,
> or mark a country as female.
>
> There is a project underway to also validate against external sources; see:
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase_Quality_Extensions#Special_Page_Cross-Check_with_external_databases
>
> Wikidata still tends to deal with relatively small amounts of data; a
> highly annotated item like Germany (Q183), for example, comes in at
> under 1MB in uncompressed JSON form. Time series data like GDP is
> often included only for a single point in time, or for a subset of the
> available data. The relatively new "Data:" namespace on Commons exists
> to store raw datasets; this is only used to a very limited extent so
> far, but there are some examples of how such data can be visualized,
> e.g.:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Graph:Population_history
>
> Giving volunteers more powerful tools to select and visualize data
> while automating much of the effort of maintaining data integrity
> seems like an achievable and strategic goal, and as these examples
> show, some building blocks for this are already in place.
>
>>> But the proprietary knowledge graphs are valuable to users in ways
>>> that the previous generation of search engines was not. Interacting
>>> with a device like you would with a human being ("Alexa/Google/Siri,
>>> is yarrow edible?") makes knowledge more accessible and usable,
>>> including to people who have difficulty reading long texts, or who are
>>> not literate at all. In this sense I don't think WMF should ever find
>>> itself in the position to argue _against_ inclusion of information
>>> from Wikimedia projects in these applications.
>
>> There is a distinct likelihood that they will make reading Wikipedia
>> articles progressively obsolete, just like the availability of Googling has
>> dissuaded many people from sitting down and reading a book.
>
> There is an important distinction between "lookup" and "learning"; the
> former is a transactional activity ("Is this country part of the Euro
> zone?") and the latter an immersive one ("How did the EU come
> about?"). Where we now get instant answers from home assistants or
> search engines, we may have previously skimmed, or performed our own
> highly optimized search in the local knowledge repository called a
> "bookshelf".
>
> In other words, even if some instant answers lead to a drop in
> Wikipedia views, it would be unreasonable to assume that those views
> were "reads" rather than "skims". When you're on a purely
> transactional journey, you appreciate almost anything that shortens
> it.
>
> I don't think Wikimedia should fight the gravity of a user's
> intentions out of its own pedagogical motives. Rather, it should make
> both lookup and learning as appealing as possible. Doing well in the
> "lookup" category is important to avoid handing too much control off
> to gatekeepers, and being good in the "learning" category holds the
> greatest promise for lasting positive impact.
>
> As for the larger social issue, at least in the US, the youngest (most
> googley) generation is the one that reads the most books, and
> income/education are very strong predictors of whether people do or
> not:
> http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/19/slightly-fewer-americans-are-reading-print-books-new-survey-finds/
>
>>> The applications themselves are not the problem; the centralized
>>> gatekeeper control is. Knowledge as an open service (and network) is
>>> actually the solution to that root problem. It's how we weaken and
>>> perhaps even break the control of the gatekeepers. Your critique seems
>>> to boil down to "Let's ask Google for more crumbs". In spite of all
>>> your anti-corporate social justice rhetoric, that seems to be the path
>>> to developing a one-sided dependency relationship.
>
>> I considered that, but in the end felt that given the extent to which
>> Google profited from volunteers' work, it wasn't an unfair ask.
>
> While I think your proposal to ask Google to share access to resources
> it already has digitized or licensed is worth considering, I would
> suggest being very careful about the long term implications of any
> such agreements. Having a single corporation control volunteers'
> access to proprietary resources means that such access can also be
> used as leverage down the road, or abruptly be taken away for other
> reasons.
>
> I think it would be more interesting to spin off the existing
> "Wikipedia Library" into its own international organization (or home
> it with an existing one), tasked with giving free knowledge
> contributors (including potentially to other free knowledge projects
> like OSM) access to proprietary resources, and pursuing public and
> private funding of its own. The development of many relationships may
> take longer, but it is more sustainable in the long run. Moreover, it
> has the potential to lead to powerful collaborations with existing
> public/nonprofit digitization and preservation efforts.
>
>> Publicise the fact that Google and others profit from volunteer work, and
>> give very little back. The world could do with more articles like this:
>>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/07/22/you-dont-know-it-but-youre-working-for-facebook-for-free/
>
> I have plenty of criticisms of Facebook, but the fact that users don't
> get paid for posting selfies isn't one of them. My thoughts on how the
> free culture movement (not limited to Wikipedia) should interface with
> the for-profit sector are as follows, FWIW:
>
> 1) Demand appropriate levels of taxation on private profits, [2]
> sufficient investments in public education and cultural institutions,
> and "open licensing" requirements on government contracts with private
> corporations.
>
> 2) Require compliance with free licenses, first gently, then more
> firmly. This is a game of diminishing returns, and it's most useful to
> go after the most blatant and problematic cases. As noted above, "fair
> use" limits should be understood and taken into consideration.
>
> 3) Encourage corporations to be "good citizens" of the free culture
> world, whether it's through indicating provenance beyond what's
> legally required, or by contributing directly (open source
> development, knowledge/data donations, in-kind goods/services,
> financial contributions). The payoff for them is goodwill and a
> thriving (i.e. also profitable) open Internet that more people in more
> places use for more things.
>
> 4) Build community-driven, open, nonprofit alternatives to
> out-of-control corporate quasi-monopolies. As far as proprietary
> knowledge graphs are concerned, I will reiterate: open data is the
> solution, not the problem.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
>
> [1] See the getValue function in
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:WikidataIB , specifically its
> "onlysourced" parameter. The module also adds a convenient "Edit this
> on Wikidata" link to each claim included from there.
>
> [2] As far as Wikimedia organizations are concerned, specific tax
> policy will likely always be out of scope of political advocacy, but
> the other points need not be.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25) [ In reply to ]
Hi all,

Sorry for the delay in chiming in. It's been a busy few weeks, and while I
haven't made a public update about strategy in a while, work has been
continuing! We've now closed Phase 1, and we're heading into Phase 2, in
which our objective is to start thinking about how we make the strategic
direction into a plan of action and implementation. It's an opportunity to
create greater clarity about how we each understand the direction, how we
might set goals against it, what we may need to change to achieve these
goals, and how we can contribute -- as projects, communities, and
individuals. I’ll be sending my next weekly update shortly but I wanted to
acknowledge the contributions in this thread first.

I've read through this entire thread, and I've agreed, disagreed, agreed
again, and started emails only to see new ones come in and have to scrap my
drafts. While I found myself often agreeing with Erik, I dig the challenges
you all have put forward and appreciate the diversity of opinions. Some of
our differences stem from the unique contexts of the groups and individuals
responding and will result in differences in implementation in each
community. Other differences, such as questioning the very concept of
source credibility, will certainly require additional discussion. But
regardless of where we end up, it has been a delight to follow such a rich,
substantive conversation. This has been one of the best, and
most thought-provoking, Wikimedia-l threads I've read in some time, and I
hope that it is the first of many as we go into Phase 2 of the movement
strategy process.

A few more responses inline:

2017-10-04 11:19 GMT-07:00 Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>:
>
> I don't understand what exactly that direction is headed towards, there is
> too much space for a variety of interpretation. The one thing that I take
> away though, is that we won't place ourselves at the center of the free
> knowledge universe (as a brand), but want to become a service. We don't
> expect people to know about 'Wikipedia' in 10 years, but we do want that
> our work is being put to good use.

It's always helpful to read critique as a challenge to our logical
assumptions. Lodewijk, I see where your interpretation comes from here, but
it is vastly different than how I interpret from this statement. To the
contrary, I wouldn’t say "service" and "brand" are mutually exclusive. I do
think that Wikimedia should want to continue to be known as a destination
for free knowledge, and we do want to increase brand awareness, especially
in areas and contexts where we are not yet well (or not at all) known. Our
brand (including our communities) and visibility are some of our most
valuable assets as a movement, and it would be strategically unwise not to
build on them for long-term planning.

When I think about knowledge as a service, it means that we want this, *and
much more*. It’s additive. We want to be who we are today, *and* we want to
provide a service to other institutions. We want to use that brand and
visibility to work with others in the ecosystem. We also want to be present
in new experiences and delivery channels, in order to preserve the direct
interface connection with Wikipedia's contributors and readers that we have
on the web. I see this as essential - for our readers, it's about ensuring
a core promise: that the chain of evidence for the information they seek is
unbroken and transparent, from citation to edit. For our contributors, it's
about extending ways to contribute as our digital interfaces evolve.

We know from the Phase 1 research that many readers see Wikipedia as a
utility, whether we like it or not. We know that people reuse our content
in many contexts. My interpretation of “knowledge as a service” is not that
we vanish into the background, but that we become ever more essential to
people's lives. And part of our doing so is not only enriching the
experience people have on Wikipedia, but investing in how Wikipedia can
promote the opening of knowledge overall. Today, MediaWiki and Wikibase are
already infrastructures that serve other free knowledge projects, in turn
enriching the material on which our projects can draw. What more could we
do if we supported openness more systemically?

I understand that the direction may still feel too vague. A direction for
the 2030 horizon is bound to lack specifics. I actually think this is okay.
The direction comes from a small-ish group of drafters trying to make sense
of 8 months of thousands of perspectives. In that sense, a small group can
only do so much. It is now our responsibility, as movement actors, to take
this direction and interpret it in our respective contexts, based on our
respective experiences. This will be a major part of Phase 2 of the
movement discussions.

2017-10-09 17:44 GMT-07:00 Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com>:
>
> With an eye to 2030 and WMF's long-term direction, I do think it's
> worth thinking about Wikidata's centrality, and I would agree with you
> at least that the phrase "the essential infrastructure of the
> ecosystem" does overstate what I think WMF should aspire to (the
> "essential infrastructure" should consist of many open components
> maintained by different groups).

There is indeed an element of aspiration in that phrase. I knew it would be
controversial, and we talked about it quite a bit in drafting, but
advocated that we include it anyway. After all, our vision statement is "a
world in which every single human can freely share in the sum of all
knowledge." That's certainly inclusive (it has no single parties or
ownership) but it is also wildly aspirational. But despite the
impossibility of our that aspiration, it has worked quite well: we've made
great strides toward a project that is "impossible in theory".

For each person who felt we should moderate the language of the direction,
there was another who wanted us to be more bold and recapture this
ambition. They wanted us to believe in ourselves, and give the world
something to believe in. As Wikimedians, we tend to prefer matter-of-fact,
sometimes plain and noncommittal statements. While that works well for NPOV
content, a strategic direction also seeks to inspire ambitious efforts. The
drafting group removed much of the flowery language from the earlier
versions of the draft, but the goal was to keep just enough to inspire
movement actors and external partners.

2017-10-09 17:44 GMT-07:00 Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com>:
>
> Wikidata in particular is best seen not as the singular source of
> truth, but as an important hub in a network of open data providers --
> primarily governments, public institutions, nonprofits. This is
> consistent with recent developments around Wikidata such as query
> federation.

Personally, I couldn’t agree more. I see federated structured data as an
inevitable (and very favorable) outcome of the concept of a service-based
model. Distribution enables greater flexibility in implementation and
customization across the network while improving the resilience of the
whole system. This is true in terms of technical stability, political
influence or censorship, and breadth and depth of content. If one starts to
understand Wikidata as a project, and Wikibase as a platform, we start to
really be able to see how a broader adoption of open structures and
attribution models can only enrich and increase the open ecosystem overall.

I also think the Wikidata model is one that has been working very well and
one that others in our ecosystem could benefit from. Today, on our newest
Wikimedia project, we work with governments, the private sector, and
individual community members, in largely constructive ways. And in many
cases, the very existence of Wikidata makes it possible for these
institutions to be open, when they would otherwise lack the expertise or
resources to build their own open data infrastructure.

For me, “Knowledge as a service” means supporting those institutions by
providing the infrastructure that they can use for this purpose, and also
accompanying them through the social and institutional changes that come
with opening data and freeing knowledge. That infrastructure could be
Wikidata, it could be other Wikimedia projects, or it could be other
Wikibase instances, depending on what makes the most sense for each
context.

Anyway, there's a lot more to discuss, and thank you all again for these
excellent conversations!

I know that some folks were wondering about all the consultation comments
about features, interfaces, and product improvements that didn't get
incorporated into the strategy. We knew from the beginning of the processes
that we'd certainly get quite a few of these requests that were too
specific to be integrated into long-term strategic thinking and planned
accordingly to document them. The goal was to consider how they might be
taken up by either Foundation staff or interested volunteer developers. As
a result, we're publishing a “Features report” written by Suzie Nussel that
summarizes these requests, and should be a useful starting point for
specific improvements that could be addressed in the shorter term.

See you soon with the next strategy update.

Katherine


On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wikidata has its own problems in that regard that have triggered ongoing
> > discussions and concerns on the English Wikipedia.[1]
>
> Tensions between different communities with overlapping but
> non-identical objectives are unavoidable. Repository projects like
> Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons provide huge payoff: they dramatically
> reduce duplication of effort, enable small language communities to
> benefit from the work done internationally, and can tackle a more
> expansive scope than the immediate needs of existing projects. A few
> examples include:
>
> - Wiki Loves Monuments, recognized as the world's largest photo competition
> - Partnerships with countless galleries, libraries, archives, and museums
> - Wikidata initiatives like mySociety's "Everypolitician" project or Gene
> Wiki
>
> This is not without its costs, however. Differing policies, levels of
> maturity, and social expectations will always fuel some level of
> conflict, and the repository approach creates huge usability
> challenges. The latter is also true for internal wiki features like
> templates, which shift information out of the article space,
> disempowering users who no longer understand how the whole is
> constructed from its parts.
>
> I would call these usability and "legibility" issues the single
> biggest challenge in the development of Wikidata, Structured Data for
> Commons, and other repository functionality. Much related work has
> already been done or is ticketed in Phabricator, such as the effective
> propagation of changes into watchlists, article histories, and
> notifications. Much more will need to follow.
>
> With regard to the issue of citations, it's worth noting that it's
> already possible to _conditionally_ load data from Wikidata, excluding
> information that is unsourced or only sourced circularly (i.e. to
> Wikipedia itself). [1] Template invocations can also override values
> provided by Wikidata, for example, if there is a source, but it is not
> considered reliable by the standards of a specific project.
>
> > If a digital voice assistant propagates a Wikimedia mistake without
> telling
> > users where it got its information from, then there is not even a
> feedback
> > form. Editability is of no help at all if people can't find the source.
>
> I'm in favor of always indicating at least provenance (something like
> "Here's a quote from Wikipedia:"), even for short excerpts, and I
> certainly think WMF and chapters can advocate for this practice.
> However, where short excerpts are concerned, it's not at all clear
> that there is a _legal_ issue here, and that full compliance with all
> requirements of the license is a reasonable "ask".
>
> Bing's search result page manages a decent compromise, I think: it
> shows excerpts from Wikipedia clearly labeled as such, and it links to
> the CC-BY-SA license if you expand the excerpt, e.g.:
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=france
>
> I know that over the years, many efforts have been undertaken to
> document best practices for re-use, ranging from local
> community-created pages to chapter guides and tools like the
> "Lizenzhinweisgenerator". I don't know what the best-available of
> these is nowadays, but if none exists, it might be a good idea to
> develop a new, comprehensive guide that takes into account voice
> applications, tabular data, and so on.
>
> Such a guide would ideally not just be written from a license
> compliance perspective, but also include recommendations, e.g., on how
> to best indicate provenance, distinguishing "here's what you must do"
> from "here's what we recommend".
>
> >> Wikidata will often provide a shallow first level of information about
> >> a subject, while other linked sources provide deeper information. The
> >> more structured the information, the easier it becomes to validate in
> >> an automatic fashion that, for example, the subset of country
> >> population time series data represented in Wikidata is an accurate
> >> representation of the source material. Even when a large source
> >> dataset is mirrored by Wikimedia (for low-latency visualization, say),
> >> you can hash it, digitally sign it, and restrict modifiability of
> >> copies.
>
> > Interesting, though I'm not aware of that being done at present.
>
> At present, Wikidata allows users to model constraints on internal
> data validity. These constraints are used for regularly generated
> database reports as well as on-demand lookup via
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:ConstraintReport . This kicks
> in, for example, if you put in an insane number in a population field,
> or mark a country as female.
>
> There is a project underway to also validate against external sources; see:
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase_Quality_
> Extensions#Special_Page_Cross-Check_with_external_databases
>
> Wikidata still tends to deal with relatively small amounts of data; a
> highly annotated item like Germany (Q183), for example, comes in at
> under 1MB in uncompressed JSON form. Time series data like GDP is
> often included only for a single point in time, or for a subset of the
> available data. The relatively new "Data:" namespace on Commons exists
> to store raw datasets; this is only used to a very limited extent so
> far, but there are some examples of how such data can be visualized,
> e.g.:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Graph:Population_history
>
> Giving volunteers more powerful tools to select and visualize data
> while automating much of the effort of maintaining data integrity
> seems like an achievable and strategic goal, and as these examples
> show, some building blocks for this are already in place.
>
> >> But the proprietary knowledge graphs are valuable to users in ways
> >> that the previous generation of search engines was not. Interacting
> >> with a device like you would with a human being ("Alexa/Google/Siri,
> >> is yarrow edible?") makes knowledge more accessible and usable,
> >> including to people who have difficulty reading long texts, or who are
> >> not literate at all. In this sense I don't think WMF should ever find
> >> itself in the position to argue _against_ inclusion of information
> >> from Wikimedia projects in these applications.
>
> > There is a distinct likelihood that they will make reading Wikipedia
> > articles progressively obsolete, just like the availability of Googling
> has
> > dissuaded many people from sitting down and reading a book.
>
> There is an important distinction between "lookup" and "learning"; the
> former is a transactional activity ("Is this country part of the Euro
> zone?") and the latter an immersive one ("How did the EU come
> about?"). Where we now get instant answers from home assistants or
> search engines, we may have previously skimmed, or performed our own
> highly optimized search in the local knowledge repository called a
> "bookshelf".
>
> In other words, even if some instant answers lead to a drop in
> Wikipedia views, it would be unreasonable to assume that those views
> were "reads" rather than "skims". When you're on a purely
> transactional journey, you appreciate almost anything that shortens
> it.
>
> I don't think Wikimedia should fight the gravity of a user's
> intentions out of its own pedagogical motives. Rather, it should make
> both lookup and learning as appealing as possible. Doing well in the
> "lookup" category is important to avoid handing too much control off
> to gatekeepers, and being good in the "learning" category holds the
> greatest promise for lasting positive impact.
>
> As for the larger social issue, at least in the US, the youngest (most
> googley) generation is the one that reads the most books, and
> income/education are very strong predictors of whether people do or
> not:
> http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/19/slightly-
> fewer-americans-are-reading-print-books-new-survey-finds/
>
> >> The applications themselves are not the problem; the centralized
> >> gatekeeper control is. Knowledge as an open service (and network) is
> >> actually the solution to that root problem. It's how we weaken and
> >> perhaps even break the control of the gatekeepers. Your critique seems
> >> to boil down to "Let's ask Google for more crumbs". In spite of all
> >> your anti-corporate social justice rhetoric, that seems to be the path
> >> to developing a one-sided dependency relationship.
>
> > I considered that, but in the end felt that given the extent to which
> > Google profited from volunteers' work, it wasn't an unfair ask.
>
> While I think your proposal to ask Google to share access to resources
> it already has digitized or licensed is worth considering, I would
> suggest being very careful about the long term implications of any
> such agreements. Having a single corporation control volunteers'
> access to proprietary resources means that such access can also be
> used as leverage down the road, or abruptly be taken away for other
> reasons.
>
> I think it would be more interesting to spin off the existing
> "Wikipedia Library" into its own international organization (or home
> it with an existing one), tasked with giving free knowledge
> contributors (including potentially to other free knowledge projects
> like OSM) access to proprietary resources, and pursuing public and
> private funding of its own. The development of many relationships may
> take longer, but it is more sustainable in the long run. Moreover, it
> has the potential to lead to powerful collaborations with existing
> public/nonprofit digitization and preservation efforts.
>
> > Publicise the fact that Google and others profit from volunteer work, and
> > give very little back. The world could do with more articles like this:
> >
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/
> 2015/07/22/you-dont-know-it-but-youre-working-for-facebook-for-free/
>
> I have plenty of criticisms of Facebook, but the fact that users don't
> get paid for posting selfies isn't one of them. My thoughts on how the
> free culture movement (not limited to Wikipedia) should interface with
> the for-profit sector are as follows, FWIW:
>
> 1) Demand appropriate levels of taxation on private profits, [2]
> sufficient investments in public education and cultural institutions,
> and "open licensing" requirements on government contracts with private
> corporations.
>
> 2) Require compliance with free licenses, first gently, then more
> firmly. This is a game of diminishing returns, and it's most useful to
> go after the most blatant and problematic cases. As noted above, "fair
> use" limits should be understood and taken into consideration.
>
> 3) Encourage corporations to be "good citizens" of the free culture
> world, whether it's through indicating provenance beyond what's
> legally required, or by contributing directly (open source
> development, knowledge/data donations, in-kind goods/services,
> financial contributions). The payoff for them is goodwill and a
> thriving (i.e. also profitable) open Internet that more people in more
> places use for more things.
>
> 4) Build community-driven, open, nonprofit alternatives to
> out-of-control corporate quasi-monopolies. As far as proprietary
> knowledge graphs are concerned, I will reiterate: open data is the
> solution, not the problem.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
>
> [1] See the getValue function in
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:WikidataIB , specifically its
> "onlysourced" parameter. The module also adds a convenient "Edit this
> on Wikidata" link to each claim included from there.
>
> [2] As far as Wikimedia organizations are concerned, specific tax
> policy will likely always be out of scope of political advocacy, but
> the other points need not be.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Katherine Maher
Executive Director

*We moved! **Our new address:*

Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kmaher@wikimedia.org
https://annual.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2  View All